View Full Version : Obama's economic stimulus package


Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 02:34 PM
Obama: Broadband, Computers Part of Stimulus Package - PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/155118/obama_broadband_computers_part_of_stimulus_package .html)

Obama: Broadband, Computers Part of Stimulus Package

Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Dec 8, 2008 7:20 am

Rolling out broadband and putting more computers in schools will be pieces of a massive economic recovery package proposed by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, he has announced.

Obama, in a radio address Saturday, told listeners that he will push for the largest government-funded infrastructure program since the Interstate highway system in the 1950s as a way to stimulate the struggling U.S. economy. Obama's radio address was short on details, but the program could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Obama's plan will ******* funds to make public buildings more energy efficient, repair roads and bridges and modernize schools. His plan for schools is to repair aging buildings, make them energy efficient and install new computers in classrooms, he said. "To help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools," Obama said in the address.

The plan will also ******* rolling out broadband, both to places where it isn't available and to health-care facilities, Obama said. It is "unacceptable" that the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption, according to Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), he said.

"Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they'll get that chance when I'm president -- because that's how we'll strengthen America's competitiveness in the world," he said.

Some conservative think tanks have disputed the OECD's numbers.

Obama also called for hospitals to be connected to each other through the Internet. Modernizing the U.S. health-care system "won't just save jobs, it will save lives," he said. "We will make sure that every doctor's office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year."

Free Press, a media reform advocacy group, praised Obama for including broadband in the stimulus package.

"In our 21st-century society, having a connection to a fast and affordable Internet is no longer a luxury -- it's a public necessity," Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, said in a statement. "Right now, more than 40 percent of American homes are not connected to broadband. This digital divide isn't just costing us our ranking as global Internet leader -- its costing us jobs and money at a time when both are urgently needed."can someone please explain to me what any of that has to do with "economic stimulus"? how does buying computers for 5th grade classrooms and spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars stimulate the economy

Andrew_Pakula
12-08-2008, 03:12 PM
Are you against the part of the infrastructure spending for roads/bridges?

JokeyLoki
12-08-2008, 03:23 PM
Are you against the part of the infrastructure spending for roads/bridges?

Why is that relevant to the topic? Nimrod's question is valid. How are those things going to "stimulate the economy"?

redbreegull
12-08-2008, 03:27 PM
Well we could start at the part where we are preparing the next generation to live and work in a 21st century world where computer/internet skills are going to be essential to all aspects of life.

Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 03:29 PM
Are you against the part of the infrastructure spending for roads/bridges?
... it's not an economic stimulus package. That should be a totally separate budgetary allotment.

Also government spending needs to be controlled at this time, and not expanded.

Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 03:30 PM
Well we could start at the part where we are preparing the next generation to live and work in a 21st century world where computer/internet skills are going to be essential to all aspects of life.

.. again, that's not an economic stimulus. At all. It has nothing to do with economic stimulus.

This is besides the fact that it's not the federal government's job to be buying equipment for local schools.

redbreegull
12-08-2008, 03:30 PM
... it's not an economic stimulus package. That should be a totally separate budgetary allotment.

Also government spending needs to be controlled at this time, and not expanded.

Ok, you're right, Obama is a terrible President.

Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 03:35 PM
Ok, you're right, Obama is a terrible President.

why must you only ever engage in hyperbole

redbreegull
12-08-2008, 03:37 PM
why must you only ever engage in hyperbole

Well you know, I take cues from your trademarked brand of willful idiocy whenever possible.

Eulogy
12-08-2008, 03:58 PM
Well you know, I take cues from your trademarked brand of willful idiocy whenever possible.

have you ever actually responded to anything nimrod posts with anything other than "omg ur dumb?"

topleybird
12-08-2008, 03:59 PM
Seems the tone of this discussion has been pretty much locked down already, so let me answer in the same snarky, simplistic way:

Doesn't all that work repairing shit and setting up computers and stuff take, like, someone to do it? And get paid for it? Doesn't all this work need to get done eventually anyway?

Eulogy
12-08-2008, 04:06 PM
i just don't see a need to have some sort of strict definition of "economic stimulus." wouldn't anything that is done to help....stimulate the economy...qualify?

Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 05:33 PM
How exactly does buying computers and broadband internet access stimulate the economy? Wouldn't that instead be a negative dollar investment, cause more inflation, higher taxes, and a greater deficit?

JokeyLoki
12-08-2008, 05:49 PM
Seems the tone of this discussion has been pretty much locked down already, so let me answer in the same snarky, simplistic way:

Doesn't all that work repairing shit and setting up computers and stuff take, like, someone to do it? And get paid for it? Doesn't all this work need to get done eventually anyway?

A) Where does the government get the money to do that and B) What about the rest of us that already have jobs?

dudehitscar
12-08-2008, 06:20 PM
Wouldn't that instead be a negative dollar investment, cause more inflation, higher taxes, and a greater deficit?

just like every other government program RIGHT!?

dudehitscar
12-08-2008, 06:22 PM
anyone else tired of arguing such basics like:

ANY government intervention EVER vs. NONE with the same people over and over.

Obama's announcement is a good idea and already has 'stimulated' the economy just by mentioning it.

topleybird
12-08-2008, 06:31 PM
A) Where does the government get the money to do that and B) What about the rest of us that already have jobs?

A) WHO CARES. Isn't that the way we've been operating thus far?

B) Congratulations? ... Oh, let me guess: you don't want to help pay to repair the country.

Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 06:34 PM
Buying a bunch of computers doesn't "create jobs" anyway.

Can anyone give a serious answer as to how this is an 'economic stimulus'?

Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 06:35 PM
anyone else tired of arguing such basics like:

ANY government intervention EVER vs. NONE with the same people over and over.

Obama's announcement is a good idea and already has 'stimulated' the economy just by mentioning it.
no it hasn't. are you kidding?

jczeroman
12-08-2008, 06:59 PM
broken.

window.

fallacy.



Hmmm, a recession is looming. Let's cut taxes, lower interest rates and increase government spending. Yes this worked really well in 2002 and had no long-term consequences later on.

Mablak
12-08-2008, 07:20 PM
Kids will attend school more often with all those sweet ass computers at their disposal, in fact they'll hardly have any reason to go home. This will create a larger, stronger, more brilliant, even super soldier-esque work force in a mere 10 years time; something we'll need if we want to avoid complete destruction at the hands of the Chinese.

Future Boy
12-08-2008, 07:35 PM
Obama's announcement is a good idea and already has 'stimulated' the economy just by mentioning it.

Enough of these announcements we might not even have to spend anything!

Future Boy
12-08-2008, 07:39 PM
Well we could start at the part where we are preparing the next generation to live and work in a 21st century world where computer/internet skills are going to be essential to all aspects of life.

Reasons why it should be done, but doenst justify it being in the economic stimulus package. One pet project will simply require another on the other side in order to get it passed. Leave this out until No Child left behind gets reworked, if he still plans on doing that.

Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 08:23 PM
Imagine if McCain were elected, and part of his economic stimulus package plan was to build tons of new fighter jets, because fighter jets are produced in America and this would stimulate the economy

You guys would be ape-shit about that. The double standards here are truly amazing.

dudehitscar
12-08-2008, 08:30 PM
Imagine if McCain were elected, and part of his economic stimulus package plan was to build tons of new fighter jets, because fighter jets are produced in America and this would stimulate the economy

You guys would be ape-shit about that. The double standards here are truly amazing.

:rofl:

Ever
12-08-2008, 08:35 PM
A) WHO CARES. Isn't that the way we've been operating thus far?

B) Congratulations? ... Oh, let me guess: you don't want to help pay to repair the country.
A) Yes and look where we are now, topleybird, look where we are now.

B) Of course no one wants to contribute to further ruin our country


Doesn't all that work repairing shit and setting up computers and stuff take, like, someone to do it? And get paid for it? Doesn't all this work need to get done eventually anyway?
Maybe. There is no way to know and certainly the government saying it needs to be done means nothing. The only person who can really make such decisions is the guy willing to risk his own money for it and whether he gets a (psychic) profit or not decides whether it had to be done or not.

Here is an example. The government can say we need to dig ten thousand holes 3x3x3 feet in the Mojave desert and each man digging the holes is to receive a salary of 50k/year. Now we can all agree that those holes do nothing and no one wants them and that if any private businessman decided to dig these holes in the ground they'd get no return on their investment. Same goes for laying broadband cables in the middle of nowhere, government schools and public health care etc. Furthermore these men now digging holes in the ground are not only paid for by money taken away from more productive uses (i.e things that make money because making money means you're doing something that people want/willing to pay for) but are also now contributing to a loss of productive employment. A worker who might only be worth 46k/year to do a productive job is now overpaid 4k, employed to an unproductive end and paid for by stolen money.

Point is the government cannot know how much to pay people nor how to decide prices. Only the market can do this. Any attempt the government makes through government spending can only further wreck the economy, and make everyone much poorer than they would have been in the hands of the free market.

lern2socialistcalculation problem

Ever
12-08-2008, 08:36 PM
:rofl:Nimrod's right y'know. Economically speaking government spending on X or Y makes little if any difference. I guess they could make a lucky guess every now and then but that's just stupid.

topleybird
12-08-2008, 08:37 PM
How on earth do you not see that the things in Obama's plan are plainly beneficial to the country

Comparing fixing roads and bridges to building fighter jets, come on

I agree, I don't see any immediate connection between putting computers in schools and stimulating the economy, but don't ignore the obviously useful stuff like repairing bridges and laying broadband cable and make fatuous comparisons like that

Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 08:56 PM
How on earth do you not see that the things in Obama's plan are plainly beneficial to the country

Comparing fixing roads and bridges to building fighter jets, come on

I agree, I don't see any immediate connection between putting computers in schools and stimulating the economy, but don't ignore the obviously useful stuff like repairing bridges and laying broadband cable and make fatuous comparisons like that
Besides the obvious point of the thread... i.e. what exactly any of this is doing in an economic stimulus package, we also get to other arguments:

Why is the federal government providing these things for schools instead of states and municipalities?

Do schools that have already provided such things, paid for by their districts, get a check in the value of the machines they have already purchased? What about schools who have serviceable systems that will now use this package as a means for unnecessary upgrades?

Should the federal government be running broadband to these facilities? What about private hospitals?

Will the contracts be bid upon or no-bid gifts to special interests?

<i>Where is the money coming from?</i>

Not everything that is "helpful" to the country needs to be provided by the federal government, and not everything that is "helpful" needs to be provided at a time when the economy is in the shitter and the value of the dollar is on the decline and the budget is completely out of whack with the revenue collected.

Nimrod's Son
12-08-2008, 08:56 PM
A) WHO CARES. Isn't that the way we've been operating thus far?


CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN

topleybird
12-08-2008, 09:51 PM
Come on, man, the market will correct itself!

topleybird
12-08-2008, 09:55 PM
Maybe. There is no way to know and certainly the government saying it needs to be done means nothing. The only person who can really make such decisions is the guy willing to risk his own money for it and whether he gets a (psychic) profit or not decides whether it had to be done or not.

I can't speak to your larger points because, hey—I know fuck-all about economics, and so far in this thread I've just been typing the first thing that comes into my head. It's strangely liberating! But—what are you saying here? If a bridge is crumbling, how is there "no way to know" whether fixing it would be beneficial or not? Are you talking strictly in terms of the bridge repair's effect on the larger economy? Or is this some weird Objectivist line of thought with which I am not familiar?

dudehitscar
12-08-2008, 10:10 PM
austrian economics = lame

dudehitscar
12-08-2008, 10:51 PM
I can't speak to your larger points because, hey—I know fuck-all about economics, and so far in this thread I've just been typing the first thing that comes into my head. It's strangely liberating! But—what are you saying here? If a bridge is crumbling, how is there "no way to know" whether fixing it would be beneficial or not? Are you talking strictly in terms of the bridge repair's effect on the larger economy? Or is this some weird Objectivist line of thought with which I am not familiar?

don't bother. This man and others on here are against ANY public works project the government has ever done. This tax free utopia they want is as unrealistic(and crazy) as the communist utopia they rant about. It's best to just debate points like this who are ok with government building the hoover dam. It will save you a lot of frustration and head scratching.

redbreegull
12-08-2008, 11:33 PM
Why is the federal government providing these things for schools instead of states and municipalities?



Leaving shit like that to local gov't is basically why half the country is completely fucking backwards and medieval.

Ever
12-08-2008, 11:36 PM
I can't speak to your larger points because, hey—I know fuck-all about economics, and so far in this thread I've just been typing the first thing that comes into my head. It's strangely liberating! But—what are you saying here? If a bridge is crumbling, how is there "no way to know" whether fixing it would be beneficial or not? Are you talking strictly in terms of the bridge repair's effect on the larger economy? Or is this some weird Objectivist line of thought with which I am not familiar?Its the repair's effect on the larger economy.

The key here is the difference between public and private spending.

Situation A) The public owned bridge

If a public owned bridge is crumbling repairing it may or may not be a bad thing. Maybe no one uses this bridge; it has two cars go across it everyday. Maybe it would be economically more efficient just to tunnel under. Maybe a different sort of bridge structure would have been better and cheaper to make. Maybe just circumventing the obstacle all together would have achieved better transport to more locales and a more appropriate amount of traffic. With no price system involved its hard to gauge any of this effectively and there is no real incentive to do so. When you have a practically infinite pool of money and none of it is risked in the investment then you're more likely to do stupid things and spend more than you should. Labor employed is, as I stated earlier, taken away from from more productive means because wages are most likely going to be inflated. Manufacturers of materials are chosen based on political alliances rather than any real cost/benefit analysis. In fact when it comes to all public enterprise you will notice that the worse something is the more money is thrown at it, and the crumbling bridge is the perfect example. This is especially true if you can just tax everyone for more money whenever you want and don't have to do anything useful or productive to get this money. The end result is an almost ever growing black hole of production which ultimately all public enterprise must amount to.

Situation B) The privately owned bridge.

Mr. Smith decides to make the Smith Bridge Co bridge across Gorge Wilson. He spends 500k of his own hard earned money (which he earned by doing things others were voluntarily willing to pay for and not just taxed) to build what he thinks is a good bridge. He builds it as such so that it won't need repairs too often because each repair costs him money and each dollar he wastes amounts to less dollars for him. He chooses materials based on how well they will perform the task and how efficiently (cheaply) they can be produced. The effect of this is rewarding good manufacturers and not arbitrarily decided government contractors. The labor he employs will be priced at the wage people are willing to do the job for and how much he can afford to spend on the labor. When the bridge is up and running he sets the toll so that traffic is never congested and always flows well thus maximizing his revenue. Most importantly he does this because his own welfare relies solely on how well he can calculate and foresee prices as decided by voluntary exchange. Now someone else lets say a Mr. Brown comes in to the picture. Mr Brown owns the Brown and Sons Bridgery and decides that the Smith Co bridge is too narrow, that there are plenty of other people who want to cross Wilson Gorge nearby but don't want to pay the toll. So what Mr. Brown does is he builds another bridge. He builds it with a bigger capital investment but pays less for repairs in the future so he is able to set a lower toll. Mr. Smith must now provide some incentive for people to use his bridge more or face losing revenue. Maybe even Mr. Brown eventually buys out Mr. Smith. Who knows, eventually we might even see a third party come in with a tunnel or they all might go out of business or I dunno. This all depends on an innumerable amount of things but one thing in the private situation is certain: That the firms in question are rewarded on their ability to do the job and to do it well and they are rewarded voluntarily. No economic calculation problem is present. What happens if Mr. Smith originally built a bridge to no where? Well only Mr. Smith loses out. No one was taxed. Maybe he built it for charitable purposes and got some kind of psychological profit from that and who are we to deny him such things.

What I'm trying to say essentially is: For obvious reasons voluntary exchange decides better what people want than involuntary exchange. So it is dubious to say for certain that it is better for the nation or better for x or better for y to do z. This can only be calculated by people's ranked subjective preferences and how all these preferences eventually come together to form a very complex market. This is where all economic calculation (i.e what is productive and what is unproductive) comes from. This is why what might seem obvious to you such as "repairing a bridge is good/bad" or that building a "jet plane is good/bad" is doubtful to me. Because I am of the belief that if it really was good then there is no reason why it wouldn't happen under the circumstances of economic liberty and moreover that it is up to private individuals to decide how to spend money.

Anyway there is a whole whole whole lot more to all this than I just said. I probably don't provide a convincing argument because I assume you come from the same angle and have overcome the same obstacles against free-market thinking as I have that you prolly haven't. If you're interested in getting a better idea about all this I recommend you read up on crazy, unrealistic and utopian Austrian economics. Fundamentals of Economic Analysis: A Causal-Realist Approach (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=99) Is a good place to start but you should make up your own mind if you agree with it or not.

redbull
12-09-2008, 12:10 AM
Leaving shit like that to local gov't is basically why half the country is completely fucking backwards and medieval.

redbreegull: fail

sppunk
12-09-2008, 12:59 AM
The only true way out of the recession is what gets the U.S. out of every recession - a large-scale war.

We need to declare a true ground-game war in the terrorist regions of the lower middle east, get the failed U.S. warehouses/manufacturing plants switched to weapon production and let the war hawks lead us to the capitalist promised land.

It's honest-to-God the only way the U.S. won't declare bankruptcy to the U.N. (which is a viable option at this point and should be discussed seriously).

topleybird
12-09-2008, 01:17 AM
I probably don't provide a convincing argument

Honestly, no, to me at least, but I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself. It's obviously not the norm in internet discussions. Or discussions anywhere, really.

Your privately owned bridges sound lovely and also sound completely unrepresentative the world I inhabit, where I think people are more apt to act according to what seems like a good idea at the time than according to logical robo-principles about using the best materials to reduce repair costs down the line and such. But I'm not sure any political or economic model really approaches reality, so. Thanks for the link. The people there seem kind of angry.

topleybird
12-09-2008, 01:20 AM
I watched my brother get eaten by a Ouija board.

redbull
12-09-2008, 02:59 AM
The only true way out of the recession is what gets the U.S. out of every recession - a large-scale war.

We need to declare a true ground-game war in the terrorist regions of the lower middle east, get the failed U.S. warehouses/manufacturing plants switched to weapon production and let the war hawks lead us to the capitalist promised land.

It's honest-to-God the only way the U.S. won't declare bankruptcy to the U.N. (which is a viable option at this point and should be discussed seriously).

i feel like sppunk is going to regret this post in like 10 years

jczeroman
12-09-2008, 04:19 AM
The only true way out of the recession is what gets the U.S. out of every recession - a large-scale war.

We need to declare a true ground-game war in the terrorist regions of the lower middle east, get the failed U.S. warehouses/manufacturing plants switched to weapon production and let the war hawks lead us to the capitalist promised land.

It's honest-to-God the only way the U.S. won't declare bankruptcy to the U.N. (which is a viable option at this point and should be discussed seriously).

Mark my words that there will be a major war if the economy continues the downturn. This is a standard tactic of states when they get in trouble. It will likely follow the inflation we are going to have in the next couple of years (and subsequent price and wage controls). They will literally kill-off the rioting poor and unemployed in a war.

JokeyLoki
12-09-2008, 11:37 AM
A) WHO CARES. Isn't that the way we've been operating thus far?

B) Congratulations? ... Oh, let me guess: you don't want to help pay to repair the country.

Just because I have a job doesn't mean I'm doing peachy keen right now. I'm self employed, and my income depends on other people spending money, which isn't happening so much at the moment.

And I am paying to repair the country. I pay taxes, asshole. And since our income is in the next tax bracket, I actually PAY them, instead of getting a refund at the end of the year. So bite me.

KrazeeStacee
12-09-2008, 11:58 AM
Seems the tone of this discussion has been pretty much locked down already, so let me answer in the same snarky, simplistic way:

Doesn't all that work repairing shit and setting up computers and stuff take, like, someone to do it? And get paid for it? Doesn't all this work need to get done eventually anyway?

DING DING DING DING

Creationofjobsomg NO WAY! I would've never thought of that!

Debaser
12-09-2008, 01:01 PM
The only true way out of the recession is what gets the U.S. out of every recession - a large-scale war.


A large-scale war is just a massive public works project. But in this case we're spending an insane amount of money on building tanks and planes instead of spending it on improving our infrastructure.

In other words, large-scale wars bring us out of recessions because they bring about large-scale spending. The largest deficit spending (as a percentage of GDP) this country ever had was during WWII.

topleybird
12-09-2008, 01:25 PM
And I am paying to repair the country. I pay taxes, asshole. And since our income is in the next tax bracket, I actually PAY them, instead of getting a refund at the end of the year. So bite me.

Oh, you're a taxpayer! I'm very sorry; you're obviously exempt from the recession.

Nimrod's Son
12-09-2008, 02:15 PM
Leaving shit like that to local gov't is basically why half the country is completely fucking backwards and medieval.

Well, that's on them.

The country will always have a serf class, anyway.

jczeroman
12-09-2008, 02:43 PM
A large-scale war is just a massive public works project. But in this case we're spending an insane amount of money on building tanks and planes instead of spending it on improving our infrastructure.

In other words, large-scale wars bring us out of recessions because they bring about large-scale spending. The largest deficit spending (as a percentage of GDP) this country ever had was during WWII.

You are half correct. Large scale wars are indeed just giant public works projects. Although they are awful because instead of building things where the net loss to the economy might only be 10-20% as with roads or internet, generally so much of what is made for war has no market value or blows things up that have market value resulting in say a 2000% loss.

Debaser
12-09-2008, 02:56 PM
Whoa, I was not advocating for a large-scale war to stimulate the economy.

If ridiculous spending is what it takes to pull the country out of a depression then ridiculous spending on roads and schools is better the than ridiculous spending on wars. I thought this was an obvious implication in my initial post.

I agreed with you there, Colin.


your prediction of an upcoming civil war, however, not so much.

jczeroman
12-09-2008, 04:50 PM
your prediction of an upcoming civil war, however, not so much.

what?

Debaser
12-09-2008, 07:08 PM
Mark my words that there will be a major war if the economy continues the downturn. This is a standard tactic of states when they get in trouble. It will likely follow the inflation we are going to have in the next couple of years (and subsequent price and wage controls). They will literally kill-off the rioting poor and unemployed in a war.

crazy talk

Future Boy
12-09-2008, 07:18 PM
Thats about the future war with Iran, not civil war.

Nimrod's Son
12-09-2008, 07:57 PM
your prediction of an upcoming civil war, however, not so much.

You do realize that the poor and unemployed are the most likely to be in the military don't you

Debaser
12-09-2008, 08:18 PM
*sigh*

a future civil war is pretty hard for me to imagine.


but if I'm mistaken, and we're talking about a future iran war, the purpose of which is to kill off the poor and unemployed...well, then. hmmm.

nope.

still hard to believe.

ravenguy2000
12-09-2008, 08:31 PM
if there's an upcoming civil war i just want to be on whichever side the black people are on

dudehitscar
12-09-2008, 09:06 PM
Honestly, no, to me at least, but I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself. It's obviously not the norm in internet discussions. Or discussions anywhere, really.

Your privately owned bridges sound lovely and also sound completely unrepresentative the world I inhabit, where I think people are more apt to act according to what seems like a good idea at the time than according to logical robo-principles about using the best materials to reduce repair costs down the line and such. But I'm not sure any political or economic model really approaches reality, so. Thanks for the link. The people there seem kind of angry.

privately owned bridges and roads: Oh what a world that would be. Where I would have to stop and pay a toll every time a make a left turn or cross a bridge. How dare government try to impose on that.

sppunk
12-09-2008, 09:19 PM
if there's an upcoming civil war i just want to be on whichever side the black people are on

You'll be against the whities? Traitor.

Mariner
12-10-2008, 12:01 AM
*sigh*

a future civil war is pretty hard for me to imagine.


but if I'm mistaken, and we're talking about a future iran war, the purpose of which is to kill off the poor and unemployed...well, then. hmmm.

nope.

still hard to believe.


who fights and dies in a war? it's not necessarily the explicit purpose of a war, but it's what ends up happening. we didn't lose our strapping young rich kids in vietnam.

Debaser
12-10-2008, 01:53 AM
i'm sorry that i can't make myself clear. i don't deny that the casualties of war will most likely be the middle and lower class.

jczeroman
12-10-2008, 04:49 AM
Let me make it clear that I have no idea if any war to get out of economic trouble (more like shift domestic discontent with the economy) will be with Iran or any other country. I'm just saying that this is very typical behaviour. When regimes create/inherit economic problems, they use war to mobilize people against someone other than themselves.

Nimrod's Son
12-10-2008, 02:08 PM
privately owned bridges and roads: Oh what a world that would be. Where I would have to stop and pay a toll every time a make a left turn or cross a bridge. How dare government try to impose on that.
I like to call it "the Northeast."

Nimrod's Son
12-10-2008, 02:09 PM
Let me make it clear that I have no idea if any war to get out of economic trouble (more like shift domestic discontent with the economy) will be with Iran or any other country. I'm just saying that this is very typical behaviour. When regimes create/inherit economic problems, they use war to mobilize people against someone other than themselves.
Hitler didn't start invading countries and rounding up ethnic groups because the economy was booming and it was time to focus on other things

Sarcastic Smile
12-10-2008, 05:23 PM
I wonder if I donated money to the anti-christ the bible is talks about