Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:12 pm**

Just another thing I'd like to add here, as well as prove in another thread it really is possible that politicians talk out both sides of their asses on damn near every issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WZLC8zkKv4

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

It's a sign that Bush fucked it all up! It's the worst economy since the great depression! 2010 will be far worse than this worse economy, but not If I get the stimulus bill for another cool trill. Damn republicans running up the debt to 7 trillion! They are nutz!

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

Posted: **Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:20 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:Do you ever recall the issue of "putting a lock box" on the social security trust fund? If so, does that fit with politicians raiding it? if not, why the lock box? just politics again?

There is a "lock box" on the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare as of the 1999. In other words, the money the government borrowed from the Administration or Medicare through bonds cannot be "raided (spent).

Posted: **Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:14 am**

GreecePwns wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Do you ever recall the issue of "putting a lock box" on the social security trust fund? If so, does that fit with politicians raiding it? if not, why the lock box? just politics again?
There is a "lock box" on the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare as of the 1999. In other words, the money the government borrowed from the Administration or Medicare through bonds cannot be "raided (spent).

Whoa there cowboy, that is all gobble-de-goop.

The Central Government, by law, must convert all surplus into Treasury Securities. The government takes the money that comes in and invests it into it's own T-Bills. T-Bills are IOU's. When it comes time to pay out, SS cashes in some of those T-Bills. So, the government is borrowing the money from SS and then pays interest on that money. It is accounting magic. And pure bunk.

The government, when it comes time to pay off those T-Bills that SS cashes in, sells new T-bills to cover the SS's ones. There is no cash, the government writes itself IOU's and them pays those IOU's with even more IOU's. The amount of interest this is costing the taxpayers should not be disregarded. Since the SS program is underwritten by the taxpayer we should be concerned somewhat of the fact that there are fewer and fewer people paying into the system than are or are about to start collecting. The poor economy increases this ratio to the negative side because so many people are out of work and not paying taxes.

Regardless, it is all accounting mumbo-jumbo. Only the government's ability to create bonds and have cash printed is the only reason it hasn't collapsed yet. When the day comes, and it is coming, when the government can't keep printing any more money, then you will see just how this system will come unraveled so quick it will make your head spin. heck, SS will be the one of the first victims the day the dollar crashes. That is why it is in our best interest to make sure our currency is protected and kept strong, something that we have not been so well with these last 40 years or so...

Posted: **Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:13 am**

patches70 wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Do you ever recall the issue of "putting a lock box" on the social security trust fund? If so, does that fit with politicians raiding it? if not, why the lock box? just politics again?
There is a "lock box" on the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare as of the 1999. In other words, the money the government borrowed from the Administration or Medicare through bonds cannot be "raided (spent).

There is no cash, the government writes itself IOU's and them pays those IOU's with even more IOU's. The amount of interest this is costing the taxpayers should not be disregarded. Since the SS program is underwritten by the taxpayer we should be concerned somewhat of the fact that there are fewer and fewer people paying into the system than are or are about to start collecting. The poor economy increases this ratio to the negative side because so many people are out of work and not paying taxes.

Of course the public should be concerned that there are fewer people paying into the system than out, but the interest gained from the Trust Fund will continue to rise nonetheless. This will continue when benefits > revenue.

In my opinion there should never be a situation with Social Security where benefits > revenue. Social Security has it's separate revenue (separate tax) and it's separate method of paying out. It has its own budget, as it should. Which is why I'd support removing the tax cap. That, according to a 2009 Trustees Report will maintain the current Trust Fund level until at least 2080.

Yes, its convoluted money that leads to problems with the General Fund or to problems with inflation I'll admit, but in a situation where revenue is always greater or equal to benefits, this convoluted money wouldn't matter so much, and those promises to pay which the government never failed on could be transfered to other uses, thus saving on interest.

Posted: **Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:21 am**

GreecePwns wrote: but the interest gained from the Trust Fund will continue to rise nonetheless. This will continue when benefits > revenue.

Hey, genius, who pays that interest? Your answer, of course, will be, THE GOVERNMENT. But, who pays the interest is the Taxpayer.

It is like making a loan to yourself, then paying off that loan and paying yourself interest. It doesn't make any sense!

Revenue is not greater than benefits, the US is running trillion dollar deficits! LMAO. "Oh, but SS isn't losing money because the SS trust fund is making interest off those T-Bills" And we wonder why we run trillion dollar deficits.

I swear to God, I try to explain these things in the simplest terms possible but people still fail to see.

If you think that when the government pays for something then it is "free", then I am afraid there is no hope. For every dollar you have taken out of your paycheck for SS, you have another 15 cents taken for the interest paid on bonds that the Government issues. Doesn't matter if it issues those bonds to China, or banks, or individuals or even if those bonds are issued to another government agency, WE (the taxpayers, the citizens) HAVE TO PAY INTEREST ON THOSE BONDS.

And then Government will look you and say with a straight face "it is a way to make more money". Bullshit, it is a way to get you the taxpayer deeper into the hole in debt!

Remove the tax cap. Lemme tell you something, they could tax each and every American citizen 100% of their earnings and it still won't be enough money everything we owe.

This is why no matter who is in office, what they promise or whatever schemes they try to make gullible people believe, nothing will change. It is because people just don't get it.

If you were to run your personal finances like the Government runs it's finances (with YOUR money no less), you would be poor, destitute and out in the street starving in no time.

Posted: **Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 am**

patches70 wrote:Hey, genius, who pays that interest? Your answer, of course, will be, THE GOVERNMENT. But, who pays the interest is the Taxpayer.

It is like making a loan to yourself, then paying off that loan and paying yourself interest. It doesn't make any sense!

Revenue is not greater than benefits, the US is running trillion dollar deficits! LMAO. "Oh, but SS isn't losing money because the SS trust fund is making interest off those T-Bills" And we wonder why we run trillion dollar deficits.

Drivel, drivel, drivel

No need to rage, genius. The point I am trying to make is that if Social Security ON ITS OWN makes money through ITS OWN TAX, it wouldn't need T-Bills as long as the money isn't touched. The lock box act says the money can't be spent directly (which is what I said since it seemed like Scotty didn't know) and that it can be borrowed. Well the option to borrow were taken out too, Social Security ON ITS OWN is arguably the only well-run facet of the government.

Posted: **Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:48 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:No need to rage, genius. The point I am trying to make is that if Social Security ON ITS OWN makes money through ITS OWN TAX, it wouldn't need T-Bills as long as the money isn't touched. The lock box act says the money can't be spent directly (which is what I said since it seemed like Scotty didn't know) and that it can be borrowed. Well the option to borrow were taken out too, Social Security ON ITS OWN is arguably the only well-run facet of the government.

So are you saying that you finally understand that SS in it's current form is a scam?
Are you seeing now that this "lock box" you spoke of is nothing of the sort as it's name tries to imply?

You just want to look at the one bit of SS and then declare the Government is doing good. You gotta look at the whole pig man. If SS is the only well-run facet of the government (if a change or two was made) then that adds some questions as well don't ya think? What good is Government if only one of it's programs runs well (theoretically with some changes) but the 100's of others are train wrecks?

Even if Government decided to actually leave the SS money alone and use it just for payment of benefits, that money that they can't borrow anymore from there will still be borrowed anyway. Look at the title of this thread "SLAVES TO DEBT". I am trying to explain exactly why we are slaves to debt.

The Baby Boomers are starting to swell the ranks of SS. People are out of jobs and tax revenues are down. Our population is aging. We need more people to be entered into the system and we just don't have the birth rates to sustain it.

Your solution is to tax people more. They are gonna have to! For the government to provide service to Person A, they must take from People B,C,D,E etc etc. Let's face it, if you are elderly and SS is your only means of income, then you are dirt poor! SS was never intended to be a retirement account.

My solution is for Congress to do it's duly appointed Constitutional duty and protect the value of our money. When government monetizes debt they destroy the value of everyone's money. With a strong currency we can save and not have those savings destroyed by inflation. With a strong currency, less buys more. This way people won't end up being forced to survive on SS and relying on the Government to take from their neighbors so that they can get by. With a strong currency and a population living in economic liberty, we can phase out SS all together, as it won't be needed.

But that is what we are doing, monetizing the debt hand over fist. We are destroying the dollar and each and every one of us has to work that much harder. As the dollar declines people have to sacrifice more of their time, spend more time away from their family just to make ends meet and still not be able to adequately save for the future. When you destroy people's savings through inflation then those people are in need of relying on SS, thus increasing pressure on the whole program.
It is a vicious circle, and it all stems from destroying the value of our own money.

Taxing people more is not a solution. Every dollar you tax from an individual is a dollar less that he could have saved for his own retirement, thus that individual is more inclined to rely on SS. Are you starting to see the vicious circle now? Taxing people more is a horrible idea.

So, tell your Congressman to stop borrowing SS money and leave it alone. More importantly than that though, you should tell your Congressman to stop borrowing and spending money we don't have and taxing us for money we haven't earned yet. Tell your Congressman that your children will not be on the hook for your debts. Tell your Congressman to get a handle on this and get a handle on it quick or by God you'll work to vote someone in who will.

Posted: **Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:53 pm**

patches70 wrote:So are you saying that you finally understand that SS in it's current form is a scam?
Are you seeing now that this "lock box" you spoke of is nothing of the sort as it's name tries to imply?

Scotty asked a question. I answered it. The lock box means it can't be directly spent. It can be borrowed.

You just want to look at the one bit of SS and then declare the Government is doing good. You gotta look at the whole pig man. If SS is the only well-run facet of the government (if a change or two was made) then that adds some questions as well don't ya think? What good is Government if only one of it's programs runs well (theoretically with some changes) but the 100's of others are train wrecks?

Even if Government decided to actually leave the SS money alone and use it just for payment of benefits, that money that they can't borrow anymore from there will still be borrowed anyway. Look at the title of this thread "SLAVES TO DEBT". I am trying to explain exactly why we are slaves to debt.

I didn't declare Government is doing good; that would be rather dumb of me. I declared Social Security is doing good with those changes made.

The Baby Boomers are starting to swell the ranks of SS. People are out of jobs and tax revenues are down. Our population is aging. We need more people to be entered into the system and we just don't have the birth rates to sustain it.

Your solution is to tax people more. They are gonna have to! For the government to provide service to Person A, they must take from People B,C,D,E etc etc. Let's face it, if you are elderly and SS is your only means of income, then you are dirt poor! SS was never intended to be a retirement account.

My solution is for Congress to do it's duly appointed Constitutional duty and protect the value of our money. When government monetizes debt they destroy the value of everyone's money. With a strong currency we can save and not have those savings destroyed by inflation. With a strong currency, less buys more. This way people won't end up being forced to survive on SS and relying on the Government to take from their neighbors so that they can get by. With a strong currency and a population living in economic liberty, we can phase out SS all together, as it won't be needed.

Taxing people more is not a solution. Every dollar you tax from an individual is a dollar less that he could have saved for his own retirement, thus that individual is more inclined to rely on SS. Are you starting to see the vicious circle now? Taxing people more is a horrible idea.

In many countries it is intended to be a retirement account. Even people here see it as one as you admit. My intention is to make sure it is one, and one that is guaranteed to be stable (which is why the money should be left alone). Your solution puts people's retirement up to the business cycle. If the economy tanks again, seniors everywhere will be in poverty. Social Security is designed to prevent that, and has lowered poverty among seniors drastically - over two thirds. It works perfectly fine when it has the money it needs to pay out benefits. To adapt to the baby boom and the increase in payments that comes with it, I proposed the increase in revenue through removing the cap. That alone means Social Security breaks even over 80 years. In another thread, Scotty asked for me to "meet halfway" so I proposed a cut in benefits for the top half of earners as well. That would give it enough money to pay out benefits for the rest of the baby boomers' lives and beyond. Call it government planning peoples' lives or whatever, but it works in other nations and it certainly has worked here.

But that is what we are doing, monetizing the debt hand over fist. We are destroying the dollar and each and every one of us has to work that much harder. As the dollar declines people have to sacrifice more of their time, spend more time away from their family just to make ends meet and still not be able to adequately save for the future. When you destroy people's savings through inflation then those people are in need of relying on SS, thus increasing pressure on the whole program.
It is a vicious circle, and it all stems from destroying the value of our own money.

And I agree with your premise that we are "slaves to debt." A rather convincing argument.

Posted: **Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:50 pm**

patches70 wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Do you ever recall the issue of "putting a lock box" on the social security trust fund? If so, does that fit with politicians raiding it? if not, why the lock box? just politics again?
There is a "lock box" on the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare as of the 1999. In other words, the money the government borrowed from the Administration or Medicare through bonds cannot be "raided (spent).

Whoa there cowboy, that is all gobble-de-goop.

The Central Government, by law, must convert all surplus into Treasury Securities. The government takes the money that comes in and invests it into it's own T-Bills. T-Bills are IOU's. When it comes time to pay out, SS cashes in some of those T-Bills. So, the government is borrowing the money from SS and then pays interest on that money. It is accounting magic. And pure bunk.

The government, when it comes time to pay off those T-Bills that SS cashes in, sells new T-bills to cover the SS's ones. There is no cash, the government writes itself IOU's and them pays those IOU's with even more IOU's. The amount of interest this is costing the taxpayers should not be disregarded. Since the SS program is underwritten by the taxpayer we should be concerned somewhat of the fact that there are fewer and fewer people paying into the system than are or are about to start collecting. The poor economy increases this ratio to the negative side because so many people are out of work and not paying taxes.

Regardless, it is all accounting mumbo-jumbo. Only the government's ability to create bonds and have cash printed is the only reason it hasn't collapsed yet. When the day comes, and it is coming, when the government can't keep printing any more money, then you will see just how this system will come unraveled so quick it will make your head spin. heck, SS will be the one of the first victims the day the dollar crashes. That is why it is in our best interest to make sure our currency is protected and kept strong, something that we have not been so well with these last 40 years or so...

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:12 am**

thegreekdog wrote:Let me throw another wrench out there. Here are the top 15 occupations in the United States in 2009:

Retail salespersons - 4,209,500
Cashiers - 3,439,380
Office clerks - 2,815,240
Food preparation and serving workers - 2,695,740
Registered nurses - 2,583,770
Waiters and waitresses - 2,302,070
Customer service representatives - 2,195,860
Labors and freight, stock, and material movers, hand - 2,135,790
Janitors and cleaners (except maids) - 2,090,400
Stock clerks and order fillers - 1,864,410
Secretaries (except legal, medical, and executive) - 1,797,670
Bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks - 1,757,870
General and operations managers - 1,689,680
Truck drivers, heavy and tractor-trailer - 1,550,930
Elementary school teachers (except special education) - 1,544,300

That is about 35 million jobs. What do they all have in common? They are all service jobs - none of these people are creating "tangible property." These are not manufacturing jobs. This kind of scares me. It means we're not producing anything.

Sure, it isn't tangible, but a service is still a product; therefore, something is being produced.

The case you seem to be making is that a decrease in manufacturing is a problem for the US, but how so?

Why does the US need to allocate more labor personnel from other sectors to the manufacturing sector when the manufacturing of many low- to mid-tech products is no longer the US's competitive advantage?

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:14 am**

patches70 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Let me throw another wrench out there. Here are the top 15 occupations in the United States in 2009:

Retail salespersons - 4,209,500
Cashiers - 3,439,380
Office clerks - 2,815,240
Food preparation and serving workers - 2,695,740
Registered nurses - 2,583,770
Waiters and waitresses - 2,302,070
Customer service representatives - 2,195,860
Labors and freight, stock, and material movers, hand - 2,135,790
Janitors and cleaners (except maids) - 2,090,400
Stock clerks and order fillers - 1,864,410
Secretaries (except legal, medical, and executive) - 1,797,670
Bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks - 1,757,870
General and operations managers - 1,689,680
Truck drivers, heavy and tractor-trailer - 1,550,930
Elementary school teachers (except special education) - 1,544,300

That is about 35 million jobs. What do they all have in common? They are all service jobs - none of these people are creating "tangible property." These are not manufacturing jobs. This kind of scares me. It means we're not producing anything.

Yep, you know my posts in "what killed the great depression". I make the point that a nation needs to be producing tangible goods if it wants to have a thriving economy. Being the most productive nation is what got us out of the Great depression-not war-not government spending, but building, growing food, producing goods got us out of the deep hole we were in from the Depression and WWII.

But these times are different. The US at that time was just lucky because war-torn Europe needed many things produced, yet couldn't provide for itself or purchase similar quality materials from other parts of the world.

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:05 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
patches70 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Let me throw another wrench out there. Here are the top 15 occupations in the United States in 2009:

Retail salespersons - 4,209,500
Cashiers - 3,439,380
Office clerks - 2,815,240
Food preparation and serving workers - 2,695,740
Registered nurses - 2,583,770
Waiters and waitresses - 2,302,070
Customer service representatives - 2,195,860
Labors and freight, stock, and material movers, hand - 2,135,790
Janitors and cleaners (except maids) - 2,090,400
Stock clerks and order fillers - 1,864,410
Secretaries (except legal, medical, and executive) - 1,797,670
Bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks - 1,757,870
General and operations managers - 1,689,680
Truck drivers, heavy and tractor-trailer - 1,550,930
Elementary school teachers (except special education) - 1,544,300

That is about 35 million jobs. What do they all have in common? They are all service jobs - none of these people are creating "tangible property." These are not manufacturing jobs. This kind of scares me. It means we're not producing anything.

Yep, you know my posts in "what killed the great depression". I make the point that a nation needs to be producing tangible goods if it wants to have a thriving economy. Being the most productive nation is what got us out of the Great depression-not war-not government spending, but building, growing food, producing goods got us out of the deep hole we were in from the Depression and WWII.

But these times are different. The US at that time was just lucky because war-torn Europe needed many things produced, yet couldn't provide for itself or purchase similar quality materials from other parts of the world.

A good example is the automotive industry. We dominated in that field because we had just bombed the hell out of our three biggest competitors.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:06 am**

GreecePwns wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
patches70 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Let me throw another wrench out there. Here are the top 15 occupations in the United States in 2009:

Retail salespersons - 4,209,500
Cashiers - 3,439,380
Office clerks - 2,815,240
Food preparation and serving workers - 2,695,740
Registered nurses - 2,583,770
Waiters and waitresses - 2,302,070
Customer service representatives - 2,195,860
Labors and freight, stock, and material movers, hand - 2,135,790
Janitors and cleaners (except maids) - 2,090,400
Stock clerks and order fillers - 1,864,410
Secretaries (except legal, medical, and executive) - 1,797,670
Bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks - 1,757,870
General and operations managers - 1,689,680
Truck drivers, heavy and tractor-trailer - 1,550,930
Elementary school teachers (except special education) - 1,544,300

That is about 35 million jobs. What do they all have in common? They are all service jobs - none of these people are creating "tangible property." These are not manufacturing jobs. This kind of scares me. It means we're not producing anything.

Yep, you know my posts in "what killed the great depression". I make the point that a nation needs to be producing tangible goods if it wants to have a thriving economy. Being the most productive nation is what got us out of the Great depression-not war-not government spending, but building, growing food, producing goods got us out of the deep hole we were in from the Depression and WWII.

But these times are different. The US at that time was just lucky because war-torn Europe needed many things produced, yet couldn't provide for itself or purchase similar quality materials from other parts of the world.

A good example is the automotive industry. We dominated in that field because we had just bombed the hell out of our three biggest competitors.

Context: our "competitors" were building "tanks" to kill our soldiers in a war they declared on us.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:27 am**

Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
patches70 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Let me throw another wrench out there. Here are the top 15 occupations in the United States in 2009:

Retail salespersons - 4,209,500
Cashiers - 3,439,380
Office clerks - 2,815,240
Food preparation and serving workers - 2,695,740
Registered nurses - 2,583,770
Waiters and waitresses - 2,302,070
Customer service representatives - 2,195,860
Labors and freight, stock, and material movers, hand - 2,135,790
Janitors and cleaners (except maids) - 2,090,400
Stock clerks and order fillers - 1,864,410
Secretaries (except legal, medical, and executive) - 1,797,670
Bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks - 1,757,870
General and operations managers - 1,689,680
Truck drivers, heavy and tractor-trailer - 1,550,930
Elementary school teachers (except special education) - 1,544,300

That is about 35 million jobs. What do they all have in common? They are all service jobs - none of these people are creating "tangible property." These are not manufacturing jobs. This kind of scares me. It means we're not producing anything.

Yep, you know my posts in "what killed the great depression". I make the point that a nation needs to be producing tangible goods if it wants to have a thriving economy. Being the most productive nation is what got us out of the Great depression-not war-not government spending, but building, growing food, producing goods got us out of the deep hole we were in from the Depression and WWII.

But these times are different. The US at that time was just lucky because war-torn Europe needed many things produced, yet couldn't provide for itself or purchase similar quality materials from other parts of the world.

A good example is the automotive industry. We dominated in that field because we had just bombed the hell out of our three biggest competitors.

Context: our "competitors" were building "tanks" to kill our soldiers in a war they declared on us.

I didn't deny that.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:32 am**

Not saying you did. But it sounded like you were saying we bombed our competitors so that our car companies would dominate.

Another thing, we helped create/rebuild the countries we did bomb, as well as their auto sectors.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:14 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:Not saying you did. But it sounded like you were saying we bombed our competitors so that our car companies would dominate.

Another thing, we helped create/rebuild the countries we did bomb, as well as their auto sectors.

Sure, the fact remains that a big reason for America's (and Canada's) post war prosperity was the fact that the war did not significantly(in ww2 terms) take place within its borders . Suddenly most of the manufacturing centers of the world had been destroyed, along with much of the infrastructure which had supplied them. It took allot of effort to rebuild all that capital, while the US was a big help to rebuilding that the rebuilding had to occur was certainly beneficial to the USA.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:37 pm**

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Not saying you did. But it sounded like you were saying we bombed our competitors so that our car companies would dominate.

Another thing, we helped create/rebuild the countries we did bomb, as well as their auto sectors.

Sure, the fact remains that a big reason for America's (and Canada's) post war prosperity was the fact that the war did not significantly(in ww2 terms) take place within its borders . Suddenly most of the manufacturing centers of the world had been destroyed, along with much of the infrastructure which had supplied them. It took allot of effort to rebuild all that capital, while the US was a big help to rebuilding that the rebuilding had to occur was certainly beneficial to the USA.

Ya, America learned the first rule of War a long time ago-
Never, EVER, fight a war within your own borders.
A lesson not appreciated by far too many in the world.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:57 pm**

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Not saying you did. But it sounded like you were saying we bombed our competitors so that our car companies would dominate.

Another thing, we helped create/rebuild the countries we did bomb, as well as their auto sectors.

Sure, the fact remains that a big reason for America's (and Canada's) post war prosperity was the fact that the war did not significantly(in ww2 terms) take place within its borders . Suddenly most of the manufacturing centers of the world had been destroyed, along with much of the infrastructure which had supplied them. It took allot of effort to rebuild all that capital, while the US was a big help to rebuilding that the rebuilding had to occur was certainly beneficial to the USA.

Well, then I guess, Don't declare war on us then?

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:10 pm**

patches70 wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Not saying you did. But it sounded like you were saying we bombed our competitors so that our car companies would dominate.

Another thing, we helped create/rebuild the countries we did bomb, as well as their auto sectors.

Sure, the fact remains that a big reason for America's (and Canada's) post war prosperity was the fact that the war did not significantly(in ww2 terms) take place within its borders . Suddenly most of the manufacturing centers of the world had been destroyed, along with much of the infrastructure which had supplied them. It took allot of effort to rebuild all that capital, while the US was a big help to rebuilding that the rebuilding had to occur was certainly beneficial to the USA.

Ya, America learned the first rule of War a long time ago-
Never, EVER, fight a war within your own borders.
A lesson not appreciated by far too many in the world.

It's not really a lesson learned when you have no neighbors of comparable power

.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:15 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Not saying you did. But it sounded like you were saying we bombed our competitors so that our car companies would dominate.

Another thing, we helped create/rebuild the countries we did bomb, as well as their auto sectors.

Sure, the fact remains that a big reason for America's (and Canada's) post war prosperity was the fact that the war did not significantly(in ww2 terms) take place within its borders . Suddenly most of the manufacturing centers of the world had been destroyed, along with much of the infrastructure which had supplied them. It took allot of effort to rebuild all that capital, while the US was a big help to rebuilding that the rebuilding had to occur was certainly beneficial to the USA.

Well, then I guess, Don't declare war on us then?

I suppose not, mainly due to the logistical difficulty of waging war against the USA. Though this is all moot nowadays nobody in their right mind would declare war on the US.

Regardless, it wasn't only Germany that was wrecked by the war, but also many of the USA's allies like France and the UK.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:29 am**

Starting to look pretty obvious.

Conquer Club

The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

Re: The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?