|
|
|
11-07-2007, 11:03 PM | #23 | ||||||
Zoom Zoom
38
Rep 1,069
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Regardless, I should point out that my statements with regards to US manufacturing increasing is a prediction, rather than a status-quo. Hence the recent article stating that VW is considering building a US production plant. Also, consider that ever since the Euro became the standard currency in the EU, its value comparable to the dollar has risen consistently suggesting that the market is only searching for an equillibrium. Still, while the value of the dollar is dropping in comparison to other currencies, you must remember that the value of the dollar is not an economic indicator for the strength of the US economy. The indicators are still GDP growth and employment which have all been improving for around the last five years. ' Quote:
Also, I should point out that while US manufacturing may decrease in the future, it should only serve as an indicator as the US economy continuing to transfer into a largely service-based economy. That allows the opprotunity to open the US to foreign manufacturing who receive better value. Quote:
Also, with this explanation, you must now agree that there are numerous factors at play with the US economy and that the value of the dollar in no single way is the defining factor. Quote:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/mili...size.php#ref-1 Note that according to the website, the figures include spending outside of the DOD. The only other table that I could find went to 2005 and only featured estimates for the future. Also, this table only lists the data for the DOD and only lists the figures in real numbers as opposed to a percentage of GDP. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/classweb/United%20States.html Still, in terms of raw numbers, the US government currently spend just as much on the DOD (admittedly, a not complete number, but meaningful none-the-less) as they do on a number of different things. http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/budget.html
__________________
In the garage: 2022 G80 M3 Manual - Portimao Blue
|
||||||
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 02:24 AM | #24 |
Banned
57
Rep 1,396
Posts |
That graph was EXACTLY what I thought it was.
You really have to quit quoting these out of date, misleading websites. If you follow the REFERENCES section from the first website you posted, you will see that everything they quote is from the BUDGET, not from any war supplimentals. (that's the part at the bottom of the page that points to the "Budget of the United States of America". It does list items outside of the DOD, but there are always defense related expenses outside of the DOD in every budget. That isn't the same as budget supplimentals that are, by definition, outside of the budget. All of your web sites quote the Budget over and over. You can't quote budget numbers when it comes to the war. The wars has been funded by supplimentals, not the budget. The wars do not appear on either of the two BUDGET links from your first web site because you have to go to the supplimentals to find the war spending. That is still true in this year's spending. If you go to the current budget, and look at the Table 3.1 —OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1940–2012 on page 54 you will see that the budget for defense for 2007 is 572 billion dollars (listed as 571,869 in millions of dollars)http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...8/pdf/hist.pdf But that's just the budget for defense spending, not the supplimental to fund the war. Now here is the supplimental that actually funds the "Global War on Terror (GWOT)". This is ON TOP of the already growing Defense spending that appears in the budget I posted above. Page 3 gives the total amount of nearly 200 billion dollars in total. This is on top of the budget. "These revisions total $45.9 billion, and are in addition to the $150.5 billion you already requested." (45.9 billion + 150.5 billion =~200 billion in round numbers) http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...t_10_22_07.pdf So the graphs and statistics that your are quoting are way off. They are off by 200 billion dollars, or about 35%. Where does this extra money come from? We borrow it. All of this 200 billion budget supplimental is borrowed. This is on top of our already huge budget deficit spending which is also borrowed. The more we borrow, the lower the dollar sinks. That's a rule of economics that we haven't been able to avoid in the US. We went from a budget surplus in 2000 of 86 billion to a buget deficit of 427 billion dollars for 2007. The supplimentals come in on TOP of that budget deficit. The war is a 50% increase over our budget deficit. We have to borrow 627 billion dollars for 2007 alone. I don't care if you express that as a percent of GDP or as how many Wendy's burgers it would buy. The net effect is the tanking of the value of the dollar, which is in a large part because of the war.And yes, electing somebody who will stop the war in Iraq will have a significant effect on that 50% increase over our total deficit that comes from the war supplimental. This will in turn help raise the dollar. Right now there is not a single Republican who will do this, so yes, voting Democrat is the only answer. If there were a Republican who I thought would stop the war, I would consider him too. And no, the value of the dollar isn't the only consideration for stopping the war. But I think we should agree not to go further into those issues. I have more to add regarding the rest of your post, but it's bed time. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 09:35 AM | #25 | |
Zoom Zoom
38
Rep 1,069
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
In the garage: 2022 G80 M3 Manual - Portimao Blue
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 10:12 AM | #26 |
Captain
20
Rep 722
Posts |
There is no doubt that the war is a huge drain on the country's economy (unless you work in the defense sector). And as bad as the numbers seem, there are some fairly significant hidden costs that will probably double the ultimate bill. A lot of the equipment that has been deployed to Iraq will never return to the States and will have to be replaced.
Additionally, the anticipated lifespan of equipment has been severely shortened and will need replacement earlier than originally planned. Maintenance costs are through the roof and again much higher than anticipated. Personnel costs are also increasing due to longer deployments and the use of bonuses to keep soldiers from departing the service. Unfortunately even if the U.S. decided to end the war tomorrow, the pull-out would take at least a year if not longer. Everyone is looking for easy answers, but the situation in Iraq is a longterm problem that we will be dealing with (and paying) for years to come. I'm not sure if the Democrats will be any more successful than the Republicans in dealing with Iraq, but the country really wants a change. Because there is a Republican currently in the White House, I suspect that party will be a casualty of the desire for change. Regardless of the outcome, I'm just hoping that the country is better off come 2009. YMMV. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 12:49 PM | #27 | |
Banned
57
Rep 1,396
Posts |
Quote:
This would result in a very disorderly and hasty withdraw from Iraq. It would best be described as an emergency evacuation under fire. It WILL result in a substantial number of US soldiers dying. Do you think this is an acceptable solution? I don't. An orderly withdraw is the only answer. An orderly withdraw cannot be accomplished by turning the switch off for all military spending like you are suggesting the Democrats could do. But shutting off the funding like a light switch is the ONLY way that Democrats alone can currently stop the war. They do not even have the 60 votes to defeat a filibuster in the Senate, much less enough votes to override Bush's veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses. You are in dream land if you think there are enough Democrats to force through legislation against the will of the Republican President and his Republican supporters in both the House and Senate. There is no way for Democrats alone to legislate an orderly withdraw. The Democrats have NOT been able to legislate an orderly withdraw for one reason, and one reason alone: Republicans blocking their legislation. This is not a bipartisan issue. Don't try to push off the blame on Democrats. That just isn't supported by the facts. So there are 3 choices: 1) Shut off ALL funding like you suggest, which would be a disaster. 2) Stay the course with the Republican agenda by electing more Republicans. Republicans who's platform position is to support Bush's agenda of more wars. 3) Elect either a pro-withdraw Democratic President, or elect a 2/3 majority of pro-withdraw Democrats to Congress. This is the ONLY way and orderly withdraw can be legislated and and safely executed over the will of pro-war Republican officials. There are no other options, as there are no Republicans running on a platform to end the war. Responsible people who want to see an orderly end to the war have only one option. Vote Democratic. If you are one of the few who want the war to continue, vote Republican. But don't then try to put the blame on Democrats for not stopping the war. Because it will be YOUR Republican vote for pro-war Republicans that will keep Democrats from getting the Congressional votes and/or control of the veto required for an orderly withdraw to happen. Take responsibility for the consequences of your own vote. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 03:09 PM | #28 | |
Zoom Zoom
38
Rep 1,069
Posts |
I'm not getting into voting for or against the war. But if you think Democrats are doing everything fine, you are living in a delusional world.
In case you have not been following this discussion, the problem here is excess spending. Again, believe it or not, the Democrats do not have to pull out of Iraq to fix that. I guess the millions of dollars that Democrats float into the budget for pork cooling (or whatever strange things they are paying for now) are perfectly acceptable but because you have a personal problem with the war, the ONLY course of action to fix the problems is to get out of Iraq. Ignore everything that we fight for and your point starts to make sense but I am not ignoring those things. Quote:
__________________
In the garage: 2022 G80 M3 Manual - Portimao Blue
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 04:11 PM | #29 |
Captain
20
Rep 722
Posts |
Both parties appear to be content on waiting until after the presidential election before making any major changes in Iraq. So we're talking 2009. In the meantime as MPower said above there are plenty of other areas to address with excess spending.
If you really want a wake-up call check out the GAO's report on the challenges that the country is facing: http://www.gao.gov/21stcentury.html |
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 05:10 PM | #30 | |||
Banned
57
Rep 1,396
Posts |
Quote:
200,000,000,000 -999,000,000 ------------------ 199,001,000,000 Great! only 119 billion dollars to go! And only 427 more billion dollars of pork to get back to a balanced budget. Pork sucks, I'm all for cutting pork. But pork is a rounding error on the bill to pay for the war in Iraq. Your claim that the problem of excess spending can be fixed by cutting pork is just laughable. There is no where near 200 billion dollars of non-military Pork that can be cut from spending. You are simply wrong on the numbers again. Wrong by a couple orders of magnitude. Oh, and by the way, what category of spending do you think represents the largest sector of Pork spending? It's the DoD. Defense. The military. You know, the guys fighting the war you support. These come in what the Gov't calls "Defense Appropriations Earmarks". This is followed up quickly by Homeland Security. That's what you are talking about cutting when you talk about cutting pork. Defense and Homeland Security. Know what you are cutting. Quote:
Quote:
There is a recruiting pool of 1.4 BILLION muslims world-wide for the terrorists. We MUST "win the war for hearts and minds", and that cannot happen through continued Iraqi occupation. Let's get out of the middle of the Iraq civil war and actually get down to winning the war on terror, starting with Afghanistan and winning the "war for hearts and minds". So don't you dare try to paint me as somebody who would "ignore everything we fight for" just because I think attacking a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, or WMD's, or al-Quaida prior to us invading them, was a bad tactical move in the War against Terror. And I take ownership of the Democratic bums I voted for that helped make that war happen. The mistake of invading Iraq was a bipartisan act. BTW - it was you who opened the door on this going this direction. I asked that we should agree not to go this direction. So don't come back and say I'm the one getting away from finances. As for my statement about taking responsibility for your own vote. I now more than ever stand behind that statement. Especially after that little stunt you tried -- telling me I'm ignoring what we fight for, and standing up on a pedestal and saying YOU do. You now have repeatedly tried to push off all the blame on Democrats. Blame them for pork, Blame them for not stopping the war, blame them for not reducing the overspending. Did you vote Democrat? I know you didn't, so don't pretend you did. You are trying to shift blame from the folks you voted for to the people you didn't vote for. When you try to shift the blame away from the people you voted for, you ARE NOT taking responsibility for your own vote. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 06:11 PM | #31 | |||||
Zoom Zoom
38
Rep 1,069
Posts |
Quote:
If you SERIOUSLY think that I was saying that 200 million in pork spending offsets 200 billion, you must think I am some sort of rolling ball of Jello (which you might anyway, but, at this point, I could really care less). My point was addressing something you completely seem to want to ignore: the War on Terror is NOT (repeat: NOT) the only aspect of government's spending. To suggest that it is the ONLY area where excess spending can be eliminated is beyond laughable. The budget that the Democrats introduced for 2008 was so ridiculous it included billions of dollars for a vast number of different things. The excess spending that the Democrats have introduced in this Congress, the Congress that told us they were put into office to end the war, totals 2.9 trillion dollars, including increases in defense spending. The dirty little secret in Washington is that anyone could end the budget deficit right here, right now. But they do not because of ridiculous commitments to programs like the Gay Cows Society which infuse close to 30 billion in earmarks alone. To repeat: excess spending is not an issue unique to the War on Terror. Excess spending is an issue that has far more to do with the political "corruption" the occurs every day in the homeland rather than the War on Terror. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
In the garage: 2022 G80 M3 Manual - Portimao Blue
|
|||||
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 06:24 PM | #32 | |||||||||
Banned
57
Rep 1,396
Posts |
If you want to get back on topic, let's get back on topic. Here is the original quote of yours that I believe is false:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Based upon the evidence, I think it is more likely than not that the US manufacturing sector will continue to react to the fall of the dollar the same way it has over the last 7 years. Chances are slim for the rosy upside for US manufacturing that you predict happening in the near future, since the exact opposite has happened over the last 7 years. The numbers are undeniable. Quote:
Do you understand what GDP is measured with?GDP is calculated in dollars. That means when the value of the dollar slides, GDP slides with it. You cannot talk about GDP independently from the value of the US dollar, because GDP is measured in dollars. Since the value of the dollar has dropped by 50%, the real value of the GDP has also gone down in real value relative to other currencies by that same amount. The gains in GDP have not kept up with the drop in the value of the dollar. Growth (or stagnation) in the economy does not back your claim that the weak dollar will bring more manufacturing jobs to the US. Quote:
Nothing you have said here supports your claim that a decline in the dollar will lead to and increase in US manufacturing. Quote:
A shift to a service-based economy would indicate that the manufacturing industry is not in the position to increase US production and take advantage of the weaker dollar. A shift to the service industry does not support your claim that the manufacturing economy will gain from a weaker dollar. The service industry traditionally does not see a boost due to currency changes in traditional models. Service is not sensitive to currency changes in traditional market models. Quote:
In conclusion. At best you have just helped me prove my point. In no case have you provided any support for your initial claim that: Quote:
Quote:
In the meantime, you have shown a complete lack of understanding of what is actually happening on the ground, in the market, and with statistics. You've presented faulty and incomplete data/charts. I think I'm done. I've proven my point. |
|||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 06:28 PM | #33 |
Banned
57
Rep 1,396
Posts |
mpower - you are a completely worthless waste of skin.
In your last post you completely went through and misrepresented everything I said. The increase in the number of terrorists is not MY number. The US MILITARY published those numbers. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR STATS, TAKE IT UP WITH THE US MILITARY!!! As for the rest of your post, "Gay Cows Society" taking 30 billion in earmarks? What the hell? No such thing exists. I guess if you have NO statistics to back yourself up, just make them up, eh? You have completely discredited yourself. Go hump yourself you worthless hack. You KNOW I'm talking about cutting 200 billion dollars, and you decide to intentionally bring up pork that can never get anywhere near that amount. Why? Were you intentionally going completely off topic just to fuck with me? Then you MAKE UP bullshit numbers and stuff like the "Gay Cows Society" in an attempt to claim that you really did believe there were 200 billion dollars in cuts elsewhere? Go pork yourself. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 07:05 PM | #34 | |||||||||
Zoom Zoom
38
Rep 1,069
Posts |
Quote:
Regardless, we have had 50 straight months of job growth in the United States (a record). If the all powerful dollar was killing these businesses, you would not see unemployment rates below those of the "great" Clinton years. The reason I originally mentioned manufacturing was because it was most prevalent to the topic at hand: cars. I then cited foreign businesses investing in the United States. I did not mention anything with regards to what has happened in the past in terms of numbers of manufacturing jobs. The phrase "it will bring more manufacturing to the US" denotes this. Again, what buys you 1 in the Europe, buys you 1.5 here. A "weak" dollar also decreases on imports, and increases exports. I could be wrong, but some party continues to harp on a trade deficit. A weak dollar addresses that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can't believe how fragile people's personalities are. You have really shown what kind of person you are here. You can not have a civil discussion with someone unless that someone agrees with you on everything. It is a shame that this type of discussion is resulting at every stretch of the country.
__________________
In the garage: 2022 G80 M3 Manual - Portimao Blue
|
|||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 07:10 PM | #35 | |
Zoom Zoom
38
Rep 1,069
Posts |
Quote:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1541.cfm This was part of the Democrat's record setting 2.7 trillion dollar budget for 2008.
__________________
In the garage: 2022 G80 M3 Manual - Portimao Blue
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 07:14 PM | #36 |
New Member
6
Rep 28
Posts |
You guys crack me up. I have never seen a thread move so far off topic on any board with such BS.
I will see if I can come up with another topic and see if you can move it in a similar fashion. BTW George Soros believes in One World Order where currency will have no significant roll to play. He should have stayed behind the Iron Curtain. Oh yea, I forgot, that system collapsed. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 07:15 PM | #37 |
Banned
57
Rep 1,396
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-08-2007, 07:21 PM | #38 | |
Zoom Zoom
38
Rep 1,069
Posts |
Quote:
Listen, you may be right; you may be wrong. But rant like you have for the last few posts is ridiculous. This is just a discussion. I did not come into this discussion to "win" or "lose" but apparently you can not live with the fact that someone disagrees with you. Get a tissue and grow up.
__________________
In the garage: 2022 G80 M3 Manual - Portimao Blue
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-10-2007, 12:16 AM | #39 |
Captain
27
Rep 772
Posts |
nixon, i'm not well versed in currency history but i'm curious, would you know, did the value of the US dollar tank during past US 'wars/conflicts' during which the US had to fund a war? selling US bonds, etc?
in high school here we're taught (i was) wars help the economy... why isn't it helping in this case? also didnt Bush decide to not publish the M3 money supply figures any more? this is to hide how much USD is being printed into circulation isn't it. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-10-2007, 12:38 AM | #40 | |
Captain
20
Rep 722
Posts |
Quote:
The current war is obviously good for the defense industries and contractors, but the taxpayers will ultimately have to foot the bill and I'm not expecting much of a post-war expansion due to other issues with our economy. The lack of M3 data is disconcerning to say the least. I suspect that this period will provide vast amounts of cannon fodder for future econ dissertations. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-10-2007, 01:24 AM | #41 | |
Banned
23
Rep 1,356
Posts |
Quote:
It's moot! Only when BMW transfers the monies over to Germany, does it loose it's value. Since BMW will be building a few new plants here in the US, tthe profits gained will build those manufacturing facilities with NA revenue. Thats why BMW is investing heavily in the US... it's cheaper for them to do so! -Garrett btw, people are buying more American goods, now that they are the cheapest available. A few years of this and we can re-establish that sector of our economy... Wall Street can wait a few years while the US builds itself back up! |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-10-2007, 05:16 AM | #42 |
Private
0
Rep 68
Posts |
Dollars
It's sad to me how you want to make this war into an economic issue. It's not. That's not to say that the economic effects of the war should not be taken into account, but there are much more important things at stake here.
You are right that the Iraq war has become a recruiting tool for the radical islamists. What you failed to point out however, is that according to the NIE, a perceived victory for the extremists in Iraq would do far more damage than what we have already done to begin with. Actually apparently some for the NIE from a while ago was declassified so I can post it here. Here you go: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." The thing is, our past weakness as perceived by the Jihadists is precisely what encouraged further attacks. Our failure to act in response to all of the attacks in the 90's is what made them believe that 9/11 would cripple us for good. The frequency of a major terrorist attack on a US target prior to 9/11 was about once a year. Since we went on the offensive after 9/11? None. Also, you said that the Iraq war was funded entirely by supplementals. That is not true. For starters, those of us in the DOD get salaries that were part of the budget, I'd go into more detail but I have to go to work. I'll be back to continue the discussion later. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-10-2007, 09:32 AM | #43 | |
Banned
23
Rep 1,356
Posts |
Quote:
+10 How people forget: The USS Cole, the World Trade Towers and Embassy... all were bombed by Bin Laden... Don't remember Bill Clinton doing a damn thing about it. Should've sqashed that tyrant before he got cult leader status. So blame the Democrates for not going in and and circumventing this whole war...! |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-10-2007, 10:12 AM | #44 | |
Zoom Zoom
38
Rep 1,069
Posts |
Quote:
And, if you do go back to the dollar as an indicator of "not helping the economy", understand that the war is not the only part of the government's budget, a point that I have been making throughout this thread. You can still fight the war and take the reigns on out of control spending.
__________________
In the garage: 2022 G80 M3 Manual - Portimao Blue
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|