DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY I AM ANGRY?
- Thread starter skipimp_
- Start date
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
ok i understand you dislike the current American government and theres plenty of reasons to and you have every right to have an opinion.
I still don't see what part of my posts you think is bullshit; i've provided very solid sources for my evidence (aka not youtube videos made by university of nowhere bros).
I can see how someone would be skeptical about the availability of the Federal Budget, but that stems out of the misconception that the Federal Budget is something to be hidden. It is not; the Federal Budget is an element of a part of our National Archive known as public record. Millions of businessmen around the world rely on the overall accuracy of the Federal Budget of the United States of America in order to conduct business. To imagine that the overall legitimacy of the Federal Budget is questionable would be pretty hard.
There are areas of the Federal Budget that are purposely used to mask officially classified items such as spending on the Pentagon building itself, and the operations of the CIA and FBI. (Let me remind you both were sanctioned by a "liberal progressivist" Harry S. Truman) by overvaluing things such as the infamous $70 hammer and $1200 toilet seat (note line from the movie, Independence Day, lol). These parts of the budget are approved by Congress every year so its not like some whacko is spending whatever he wants. I guess your liberal progressivist types thought it super necessary to keep the spending a secret- i can understand why.
I also still think you don't really know much about how the military functions, how and why certain areas are privatized, KBR, Halliburton, or Blackwater. And because you don't know much about them, i still view your opinion to be shaky at best. My advice is read up a little more before you try to alarm NS about how the military is doing "wrong" things. (not trying to attack, just saying)
I hope that answers a few questions and i hope you've learned a thing or two about how the systems of the US works. I also hope youve learned to do your research before attempting to speak out on a subject. (no offense, just saying)
I still don't see what part of my posts you think is bullshit; i've provided very solid sources for my evidence (aka not youtube videos made by university of nowhere bros).
I can see how someone would be skeptical about the availability of the Federal Budget, but that stems out of the misconception that the Federal Budget is something to be hidden. It is not; the Federal Budget is an element of a part of our National Archive known as public record. Millions of businessmen around the world rely on the overall accuracy of the Federal Budget of the United States of America in order to conduct business. To imagine that the overall legitimacy of the Federal Budget is questionable would be pretty hard.
There are areas of the Federal Budget that are purposely used to mask officially classified items such as spending on the Pentagon building itself, and the operations of the CIA and FBI. (Let me remind you both were sanctioned by a "liberal progressivist" Harry S. Truman) by overvaluing things such as the infamous $70 hammer and $1200 toilet seat (note line from the movie, Independence Day, lol). These parts of the budget are approved by Congress every year so its not like some whacko is spending whatever he wants. I guess your liberal progressivist types thought it super necessary to keep the spending a secret- i can understand why.
I also still think you don't really know much about how the military functions, how and why certain areas are privatized, KBR, Halliburton, or Blackwater. And because you don't know much about them, i still view your opinion to be shaky at best. My advice is read up a little more before you try to alarm NS about how the military is doing "wrong" things. (not trying to attack, just saying)
I hope that answers a few questions and i hope you've learned a thing or two about how the systems of the US works. I also hope youve learned to do your research before attempting to speak out on a subject. (no offense, just saying)
youre right, you know more about the military than I do.
If that makes you proud, then great.
What I do know is that there's nothing 'good' about Halliburton.
they deal in blood
What evidence are you referring to?
to what Issue?
I didn't know we were collecting proof for something.
The budget has to be reasonably accurate, yes.
However, I think you give the Elite less credit than they deserve.
Their ability to create and distribute money is their weapon, and they can definitely do that.
You don't get t see how much, or where they are spending it.
When the CIA has to plan an operation to, oh, say, assassinate Hugo Chavez, where does the money come from?
Where do YOU think it comes from?
Do you think those funds can be found in the budget?
A privatized military is uncool. Its also unethical and extremely shady.
And the lack of a regulatory body holding soldiers and private militias accountable for their actions results in what we are seeing in Iraq, widespread bloodshed and horrific atrocities.
Committed by guys like you and me, caught up in the BS brainwashing, with Psychotic army commanders ordering soldiers to fire on all taxi cabs for instance.
Please see earlier link to Iraq Veterans Against the War and the testimonials given by actual soldiers who did these brutal things.
It's impossible to know everything, so just because you have friends in the military and you can talk for hours about body armor does not mean my arguments are not credible.
p.s what no-name university teachers are you referring to?
If that makes you proud, then great.
What I do know is that there's nothing 'good' about Halliburton.
they deal in blood
What evidence are you referring to?
to what Issue?
I didn't know we were collecting proof for something.
The budget has to be reasonably accurate, yes.
However, I think you give the Elite less credit than they deserve.
Their ability to create and distribute money is their weapon, and they can definitely do that.
You don't get t see how much, or where they are spending it.
When the CIA has to plan an operation to, oh, say, assassinate Hugo Chavez, where does the money come from?
Where do YOU think it comes from?
Do you think those funds can be found in the budget?
A privatized military is uncool. Its also unethical and extremely shady.
And the lack of a regulatory body holding soldiers and private militias accountable for their actions results in what we are seeing in Iraq, widespread bloodshed and horrific atrocities.
Committed by guys like you and me, caught up in the BS brainwashing, with Psychotic army commanders ordering soldiers to fire on all taxi cabs for instance.
Please see earlier link to Iraq Veterans Against the War and the testimonials given by actual soldiers who did these brutal things.
It's impossible to know everything, so just because you have friends in the military and you can talk for hours about body armor does not mean my arguments are not credible.
p.s what no-name university teachers are you referring to?
steezyjibber
Active member
Twinjibber77
Active member
pretty much just another reason why were FUCKED!
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
The only thing you know about Halliburton is what you saw in farenheit 9/11.
I alread explained ad nauseum how the CIA spends their money. Please go to the right side of your browser, to where the scroll bar is located. Look slightly up at the small rectangle with a " ^ " in it. Please click on that until you see my previous post.
But in case you're having trouble locating the scroll bar, let me break it down one more time. Every year the director of all 16 US intelligence communities (Director of National Intelligence or ODNI for short) proposes a classified budget for the CIA to Congress. If Congress approves of this budget, it diverts money from the overall Defense budget but hides it over the cost of other things. That is why to people who are dumb, ignorant, left wing, or liberal (excuse the redundancy), it seems like we are misallocating funds or overspending. The reality is we are not, we are simply hiding the cost of CIA operations. So to wrap it up, the overall umbrella of the Federal Budget is still accurate its only within the defense budget, classified aspects are hidden within other areas of the budget. But the end of the line is the Defense sector. You can't hide additional Defense spending in say, Social Security. Thats where I think it comes from.
Every country in the world that has a military uses PMC's (you just don't know it). Areas of the military that are privatized are not commiting atrocities. And the widespread bloodshed and horrific atrocities you speak of have yet to be proven for real. It's war, its not pretty but this war sure as hell is better than all previous wars. You're both too young or too ignorant on history to know what war was like 20 years ago. The ROE and Geneva conventions these days are so stringent that a soldier cant kill a bearded 20 something muslim wielding an AK with dynamite strapped to his chest until that muslim walks up to him and pulls the trigger.
You're arguments aren't credible because you have yet to cite a single reliable source. That's right- ONE reliable source please.
I alread explained ad nauseum how the CIA spends their money. Please go to the right side of your browser, to where the scroll bar is located. Look slightly up at the small rectangle with a " ^ " in it. Please click on that until you see my previous post.
But in case you're having trouble locating the scroll bar, let me break it down one more time. Every year the director of all 16 US intelligence communities (Director of National Intelligence or ODNI for short) proposes a classified budget for the CIA to Congress. If Congress approves of this budget, it diverts money from the overall Defense budget but hides it over the cost of other things. That is why to people who are dumb, ignorant, left wing, or liberal (excuse the redundancy), it seems like we are misallocating funds or overspending. The reality is we are not, we are simply hiding the cost of CIA operations. So to wrap it up, the overall umbrella of the Federal Budget is still accurate its only within the defense budget, classified aspects are hidden within other areas of the budget. But the end of the line is the Defense sector. You can't hide additional Defense spending in say, Social Security. Thats where I think it comes from.
Every country in the world that has a military uses PMC's (you just don't know it). Areas of the military that are privatized are not commiting atrocities. And the widespread bloodshed and horrific atrocities you speak of have yet to be proven for real. It's war, its not pretty but this war sure as hell is better than all previous wars. You're both too young or too ignorant on history to know what war was like 20 years ago. The ROE and Geneva conventions these days are so stringent that a soldier cant kill a bearded 20 something muslim wielding an AK with dynamite strapped to his chest until that muslim walks up to him and pulls the trigger.
You're arguments aren't credible because you have yet to cite a single reliable source. That's right- ONE reliable source please.
I was treating you like an equal, but now youre an idiot.
seriously
You think I can't read?
You say the same things over and over. Why? Because you don't understand what it is that I am saying., So you keep spouting what you know.
I DID LINK TO CREDIBLE SOURCES YOU FUCKING TOOL
YOU USE THE FUCKING SCROLL BAR FFS
I linked to the FIRST HAND TESTIMONIALS OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE MURDERS.
youre a broken record.
I heard EVERYTHING YOU SAID
you just keep saying it.
seriously
You think I can't read?
You say the same things over and over. Why? Because you don't understand what it is that I am saying., So you keep spouting what you know.
I DID LINK TO CREDIBLE SOURCES YOU FUCKING TOOL
YOU USE THE FUCKING SCROLL BAR FFS
I linked to the FIRST HAND TESTIMONIALS OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE MURDERS.
youre a broken record.
I heard EVERYTHING YOU SAID
you just keep saying it.
ThaLorax
Active member
Yes, yes we are indeed. That's exactly what he's trying to prove and you said it plain and clear in your own rebuttal and most of your other responses as well. Why should they hide what they're spending our money on? That's both unethical and shows that there's something shady happening that we're not supposed to know about.
and stop fucking calling left wingers/liberals stupid you ignorant fuck. just because someone has a different view point than yourself doesn't mean that they are less intelligent. your elitist ass and all the other smart asses like your are what is wrong with this world. Your lack of ability to even consider the other side of an issue shows your inability to come to a proper conclusion. Thus, making everything you have stated in here inconclusive and downright ignorant. I will admit that you know a great deal about the economic system of our country but the majority of your information you gave was repetitive and just not relevant. You are too closed-minded and have wayyy too much faith in our government which is very well known to be corrupt.
I think one of my first reponses to you is still quite accurate.
and stop fucking calling left wingers/liberals stupid you ignorant fuck. just because someone has a different view point than yourself doesn't mean that they are less intelligent. your elitist ass and all the other smart asses like your are what is wrong with this world. Your lack of ability to even consider the other side of an issue shows your inability to come to a proper conclusion. Thus, making everything you have stated in here inconclusive and downright ignorant. I will admit that you know a great deal about the economic system of our country but the majority of your information you gave was repetitive and just not relevant. You are too closed-minded and have wayyy too much faith in our government which is very well known to be corrupt.
I think one of my first reponses to you is still quite accurate.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
ooooo ahhhh you can take soundbites out of context! Congratulations. If you took the time to read the thread, you'd know the dispute is not upon the specifics of what happens within the intelligence community, but rather the accuracy of the Defense sector of the Federal Budget overall. People were speculating that the amount 580 billion dollars for the area of Defense was an inaccurate number. They based this assumption on the fact that the CIA budget was classified. I rebutted saying that the CIA budget is hidden within the Defense budget so the amount 580 billion dollars is accurate. Moreover, people like icepointa believes that we spend closer to 1.2 trillion dollar annually on defense related issues. I think its pretty clear we don't have 1.2 trillion dollars to spend like that every year. I mean a major problem is our national debt which is at 9.1 trillion dollar cummulative since like 1812. If we were spending 1.2 trillion on defense alone, how the fuck is our national debt not like 20 trillion dollars?
My rebuttles sound really repetitive for a reason! It is because you guys keep bringing up the same points over and over again despite what I write! You then PM me or post here asking me to reply and I can only post the same response again! I mean this is the 4th or 5th time ive had to explain a simple concept such as thefederal budget!
And for the record, i completely agree about how unethical it is for us to have a CIA that takes such a preemptive approach to foreign policy. But, that doesnt suggest we should have a clear CIA budget! The CIA (among other things...) also, believe it or not, protects us everyday and there are A LOT of spies and espionagers in the US (one was just arrested a few days ago. some chinese dude was trying to steal night vision and computer plans from the pentagon). Somethings must be hidden for our own good. And as long as our elected officials in Congress approve of the budget, i don't see a problem with it.
You're right. Just cuz someone has a different point of view than me doesn't make them dumb inherently. But that also doesn't mean someone can be dumb based upon their point of view. If it was my point of view that 2+2=5, wouldn't that make me dumb? What if I thought murder shouldn't be a capital offense? What if i thought crime of passion should be a misdemeanor? Would that make me dumb? I would hope so. Consequently, i view people with far left ideals as dumb. thats my point of view! And it seems that its you guys that don't give my point of view a chance! My discourse has been thoroughly supported with facts from a solid source. In fact, my method of debate in this thread has largely been refutation. You guys keep making unsubstantiated assertions with absolutely no credible sources. I have used non opinionated scientific data in the form of numbers or historical fact. And im not trying to make direct personal attacks but if i am, if i have counted correctly, you guys have made way more attacks towards me than i have towards you.
My rebuttles sound really repetitive for a reason! It is because you guys keep bringing up the same points over and over again despite what I write! You then PM me or post here asking me to reply and I can only post the same response again! I mean this is the 4th or 5th time ive had to explain a simple concept such as thefederal budget!
And for the record, i completely agree about how unethical it is for us to have a CIA that takes such a preemptive approach to foreign policy. But, that doesnt suggest we should have a clear CIA budget! The CIA (among other things...) also, believe it or not, protects us everyday and there are A LOT of spies and espionagers in the US (one was just arrested a few days ago. some chinese dude was trying to steal night vision and computer plans from the pentagon). Somethings must be hidden for our own good. And as long as our elected officials in Congress approve of the budget, i don't see a problem with it.
You're right. Just cuz someone has a different point of view than me doesn't make them dumb inherently. But that also doesn't mean someone can be dumb based upon their point of view. If it was my point of view that 2+2=5, wouldn't that make me dumb? What if I thought murder shouldn't be a capital offense? What if i thought crime of passion should be a misdemeanor? Would that make me dumb? I would hope so. Consequently, i view people with far left ideals as dumb. thats my point of view! And it seems that its you guys that don't give my point of view a chance! My discourse has been thoroughly supported with facts from a solid source. In fact, my method of debate in this thread has largely been refutation. You guys keep making unsubstantiated assertions with absolutely no credible sources. I have used non opinionated scientific data in the form of numbers or historical fact. And im not trying to make direct personal attacks but if i am, if i have counted correctly, you guys have made way more attacks towards me than i have towards you.
HappyTreez
Member
woopty fuckin do. you're still a fuckin freshman in college which means you haven't learned shit but the basics. Dont pull off i go to a better school than you shit cuz it doesnt really matter until you get to be an upper classman.
I'm not saying you're arguments arent legitimate, i'm just saying you should stop trying to justify yourself by saying 'im better than you cuz i can afford to go to syracuse' or wherever the fuck it is you go.
Also, it seems like you are naive enough to believe that everything the government says is true. it has been doing shit behind our backs for decades so what makes you think they are completely honest when they tell the public what they are doing. where are you getting your facts? post links to back you're arguments up or else you sound like a wannabe know it all ass hole.
I'm not saying you're arguments arent legitimate, i'm just saying you should stop trying to justify yourself by saying 'im better than you cuz i can afford to go to syracuse' or wherever the fuck it is you go.
Also, it seems like you are naive enough to believe that everything the government says is true. it has been doing shit behind our backs for decades so what makes you think they are completely honest when they tell the public what they are doing. where are you getting your facts? post links to back you're arguments up or else you sound like a wannabe know it all ass hole.
ThaLorax
Active member
i don't even know how to respond to this. your head is shoved so far up your ass you wouldn't know the truth if it were staring you in the face...... because it would be staring at your ass.
how can you call an entire group of people dumb? wait a second here, are you republican_enemy's alter-ego?
how can you call an entire group of people dumb? wait a second here, are you republican_enemy's alter-ego?
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
hey first of all how bout someone actually attacks my arguement with refutation rather than ad hominem? Oh wait thats right, its because im right and youre all collectively wrong.
I never said i believe everything the government tells me, but if theres one part of the government that everyone should trust it is the accuracy of the federal budget. I mean honestly, no one with a head on their shoulders attacks its legitimacy. Liberals blame the government for a lot of things but when have you ever heard of anyone attacking the legitimacy of the US Federal Budget? If you dont believe the whitehouse.gov version, you can have your pick at any number of independent international assessments all of which say the same exact thing.
everyone on this site watches way too much 24.
I never said i believe everything the government tells me, but if theres one part of the government that everyone should trust it is the accuracy of the federal budget. I mean honestly, no one with a head on their shoulders attacks its legitimacy. Liberals blame the government for a lot of things but when have you ever heard of anyone attacking the legitimacy of the US Federal Budget? If you dont believe the whitehouse.gov version, you can have your pick at any number of independent international assessments all of which say the same exact thing.
everyone on this site watches way too much 24.
I will reply in bullet form on each of your points:
the trillions: What was the total national debt in 1990?
National Debt, Total Gross Domestic ProductYear % ChangeDebtEndingPresidentCurrent $ (1)YoYDuring TermAvg. AnnualCurrent $ (2)as % of12/31/1976FORD $ 653,544,000,000 $1,825,300,000,00035.8%12/31/1977CARTER $ 718,943,000,00010% $2,030,900,000,00035.4%12/31/1978CARTER $ 789,207,000,00010% $2,294,700,000,00034.4%12/31/1979CARTER $ 845,116,000,0007% $2,563,300,000,00033.0%12/31/1980CARTER $ 930,210,000,00010%42%10.6%$2,789,500,000,00033.3%12/31/1981REAGAN $ 1,028,729,000,00011% $3,128,400,000,00032.9%12/31/1982REAGAN $ 1,197,073,000,00016% $3,255,000,000,00036.8%12/31/1983REAGAN $ 1,410,702,000,00018% $3,536,700,000,00039.9%12/31/1984REAGAN $ 1,662,966,000,00018% $3,933,200,000,00042.3%12/31/1985REAGAN $ 1,945,912,000,00017% $4,220,300,000,00046.1%12/31/1986REAGAN $ 2,214,835,000,00014% $4,462,800,000,00049.6%12/31/1987REAGAN $ 2,431,715,000,00010% $4,739,500,000,00051.3%12/31/1988REAGAN $ 2,684,392,000,00010%189%23.6%$5,103,800,000,00052.6%12/31/1989BUSH $ 2,952,994,000,00010% $5,484,400,000,00053.8%12/31/1990BUSH $ 3,364,820,000,00014% $5,803,100,000,00058.0%12/31/1991BUSH $ 3,801,800,000,00013% $5,995,900,000,00063.4%12/31/1992BUSH $ 4,177,009,000,00010%55.6%13.9%$6,337,700,000,00065.9%12/31/1993CLINTON $ 4,535,687,054,4069% $6,657,400,000,00068.1%12/31/1994CLINTON $ 4,800,149,946,1436% $7,072,200,000,00067.9%12/31/1995CLINTON $ 4,988,664,979,0144% $7,397,700,000,00067.4%12/31/1996CLINTON $ 5,323,171,750,7837% $7,816,900,000,00068.1%12/31/1997CLINTON $ 5,502,388,012,3753% $8,304,300,000,00066.3%12/31/1998CLINTON $ 5,614,217,021,1952% $8,747,000,000,00064.2%12/31/1999CLINTON $ 5,776,091,314,2253% $9,268,400,000,00062.3%12/31/2000CLINTON $ 5,662,216,013,697-2%36%4.4%$9,817,000,000,00057.7%12/31/2001BUSH $ 5,943,438,563,4365% $10,128,000,000,00058.7%12/31/2002BUSH $ 6,405,707,456,8478% $10,487,000,000,00061.1%12/31/2003BUSH $ 7,001,312,247,8189% $11,004,000,000,00063.6%12/31/2004BUSH $ 7,596,165,867,4248%34%8.5%$11,728,000,000,00064.8%12/30/2005BUSH $ 8,170,424,541,3138%44%8.9%$12,735,000,000,00064.8%Table, formatting, page © 2005 PresidentialDebt.org. All rights reserved. Request permission before using/linking: info@presidentialdebt.orgUS National Debt by Presidential Term, per Capita,1976-2005 National DebtNational Debt, per CapitaYear Total EstDebt,% ChangePersonal Incomeper Capita IncomeEndingPresidentCurrent $ (1)Population (3)per CapitaYoYDuring TermAvg. AnnualCurrent $(4)Debt as % ofCurrent $(5)Debt as % of12/31/1976FORD $ 653,544,000,000218,035,164 $ 2,997 $6,75444%$5,27157%12/31/1977CARTER $ 718,943,000,000220,239,425 $ 3,2648.9% $7,40544%$5,78556%12/31/1978CARTER $ 789,207,000,000222,584,545 $ 3,5468.6% $8,24543%$6,45555%12/31/1979CARTER $ 845,116,000,000225,055,487 $ 3,7555.9% $9,14641%$7,16852%12/31/1980CARTER $ 930,210,000,000227,224,681 $ 4,0949.0%36.6%9.1%$10,11440%$7,78753%12/31/1981REAGAN $ 1,028,729,000,000229,465,714 $ 4,4839.5% $11,24640%$8,47653%12/31/1982REAGAN $ 1,197,073,000,000231,664,458 $ 5,16715.3% $11,93543%$8,98058%12/31/1983REAGAN $ 1,410,702,000,000233,791,994 $ 6,03416.8% $12,61848%$9,49464%12/31/1984REAGAN $ 1,662,966,000,000235,824,902 $ 7,05216.9% $13,89151%$10,32868%12/31/1985REAGAN $ 1,945,912,000,000237,923,795 $ 8,17916.0% $14,75855%$11,01374%12/31/1986REAGAN $ 2,214,835,000,000240,132,887 $ 9,22312.8% $15,44260%$11,67079%12/31/1987REAGAN $ 2,431,715,000,000242,288,918 $ 10,0368.8% $16,24062%$12,39181%12/31/1988REAGAN $ 2,684,392,000,000244,498,982 $ 10,9799.4%168%21.0%$17,33163%$13,12384%12/31/1989BUSH $ 2,952,994,000,000246,819,230 $ 11,9649.0% $18,52065%$14,05685%12/31/1990BUSH $ 3,364,820,000,000249,464,396 $ 13,48812.7% $19,47769%$14,38794%12/31/1991BUSH $ 3,801,800,000,000252,153,092 $ 15,07711.8% $19,89276%$14,617103%12/31/1992BUSH $ 4,177,009,000,000255,029,699 $ 16,3798.6%49.2%12.3%$20,85479%$14,847110%12/31/1993CLINTON $ 4,535,687,054,406257,782,608 $ 17,5957.4% $21,34682%$15,777112%12/31/1994CLINTON $ 4,800,149,946,143260,327,021 $ 18,4394.8% $22,17283%$16,555111%12/31/1995CLINTON $ 4,988,664,979,014262,803,276 $ 18,9832.9% $23,07682%$17,227110%12/31/1996CLINTON $ 5,323,171,750,783265,228,572 $ 20,0705.7% $24,17583%$18,136111%12/31/1997CLINTON $ 5,502,388,012,375267,783,607 $ 20,5482.4% $25,33481%$19,241107%12/31/1998CLINTON $ 5,614,217,021,195270,248,003 $ 20,7741.1% $26,88377%$20,120103%12/31/1999CLINTON $ 5,776,091,314,225272,690,813 $ 21,1822.0% $27,93976%$21,181100%12/31/2000CLINTON $ 5,662,216,013,697282,192,162 $ 20,065-5.3%22.5%2.8%$29,84767%$22,19990%12/31/2001BUSH $ 5,943,438,563,436285,102,075 $ 20,8473.9% $30,57568%$22,85191%12/31/2002BUSH $ 6,405,707,456,847287,941,220 $ 22,2476.7% $30,80472%N/AN/A12/31/2003BUSH $ 7,001,312,247,818290,788,976 $ 24,0778.2% $31,47277%N/AN/A12/31/2004BUSH $ 7,596,165,867,424293,655,404 $ 25,8687.4%28.9%7.2%$32,93779%N/AN/A12/30/2005BUSH $ 8,170,424,541,313297,869,921 $ 27,4306.0%36.7%7.3%$33,04183%N/AN/AIf that can be shown^ you would see that every time a Bush was in power, the National Debt Doubled.
no other president came halfway to what Bush spends.
Now please explain to me what Bush spends all that $ on?
Health care?
Social security?
Education?
I'm way off arent I?
Yup.
He spends it on Military.
and War.
To me, it is as clear as day that the plan is to push the military to the forfront, allowing the development of new technology (which will help mankind (maybe)), but you have to have an active military, and things to fight about.
Saddam was hired by the CIA, his government was put in place by the US gov't, and he was supplied weapons by the USA, and told who to use them against.
Then when the time was right, they invaded Iraq, cause they basically owned the government, and they did this for the reasons I have already stated.
Oil refineries (pipeline from the Caspian Sea), Protection for Israel from Syria and Iran, and A military base.
If you dispute this, or don't see it, you're hopeless.
Now, this in and of itself is arrogant, not to mention illegal, and shouldn't be allowed to happen as it is happening,
the pretext for the war was a LIE, and a bad one.
The attrocities being committed right now in Iraq by American soldiers (under orders by psycho Commanders) privately hired merc's or not, are the Issue. This is what Im trying to get you to talk about. I don't care about how the CIA hides it's money. I'm sure you're right.
The point is it doesn't fucking matter how they hide it.
The whole formula, the Whole equation is fucked up, and wrong.
That is MY point.
the trillions: What was the total national debt in 1990?
National Debt, Total Gross Domestic ProductYear % ChangeDebtEndingPresidentCurrent $ (1)YoYDuring TermAvg. AnnualCurrent $ (2)as % of12/31/1976FORD $ 653,544,000,000 $1,825,300,000,00035.8%12/31/1977CARTER $ 718,943,000,00010% $2,030,900,000,00035.4%12/31/1978CARTER $ 789,207,000,00010% $2,294,700,000,00034.4%12/31/1979CARTER $ 845,116,000,0007% $2,563,300,000,00033.0%12/31/1980CARTER $ 930,210,000,00010%42%10.6%$2,789,500,000,00033.3%12/31/1981REAGAN $ 1,028,729,000,00011% $3,128,400,000,00032.9%12/31/1982REAGAN $ 1,197,073,000,00016% $3,255,000,000,00036.8%12/31/1983REAGAN $ 1,410,702,000,00018% $3,536,700,000,00039.9%12/31/1984REAGAN $ 1,662,966,000,00018% $3,933,200,000,00042.3%12/31/1985REAGAN $ 1,945,912,000,00017% $4,220,300,000,00046.1%12/31/1986REAGAN $ 2,214,835,000,00014% $4,462,800,000,00049.6%12/31/1987REAGAN $ 2,431,715,000,00010% $4,739,500,000,00051.3%12/31/1988REAGAN $ 2,684,392,000,00010%189%23.6%$5,103,800,000,00052.6%12/31/1989BUSH $ 2,952,994,000,00010% $5,484,400,000,00053.8%12/31/1990BUSH $ 3,364,820,000,00014% $5,803,100,000,00058.0%12/31/1991BUSH $ 3,801,800,000,00013% $5,995,900,000,00063.4%12/31/1992BUSH $ 4,177,009,000,00010%55.6%13.9%$6,337,700,000,00065.9%12/31/1993CLINTON $ 4,535,687,054,4069% $6,657,400,000,00068.1%12/31/1994CLINTON $ 4,800,149,946,1436% $7,072,200,000,00067.9%12/31/1995CLINTON $ 4,988,664,979,0144% $7,397,700,000,00067.4%12/31/1996CLINTON $ 5,323,171,750,7837% $7,816,900,000,00068.1%12/31/1997CLINTON $ 5,502,388,012,3753% $8,304,300,000,00066.3%12/31/1998CLINTON $ 5,614,217,021,1952% $8,747,000,000,00064.2%12/31/1999CLINTON $ 5,776,091,314,2253% $9,268,400,000,00062.3%12/31/2000CLINTON $ 5,662,216,013,697-2%36%4.4%$9,817,000,000,00057.7%12/31/2001BUSH $ 5,943,438,563,4365% $10,128,000,000,00058.7%12/31/2002BUSH $ 6,405,707,456,8478% $10,487,000,000,00061.1%12/31/2003BUSH $ 7,001,312,247,8189% $11,004,000,000,00063.6%12/31/2004BUSH $ 7,596,165,867,4248%34%8.5%$11,728,000,000,00064.8%12/30/2005BUSH $ 8,170,424,541,3138%44%8.9%$12,735,000,000,00064.8%Table, formatting, page © 2005 PresidentialDebt.org. All rights reserved. Request permission before using/linking: info@presidentialdebt.orgUS National Debt by Presidential Term, per Capita,1976-2005 National DebtNational Debt, per CapitaYear Total EstDebt,% ChangePersonal Incomeper Capita IncomeEndingPresidentCurrent $ (1)Population (3)per CapitaYoYDuring TermAvg. AnnualCurrent $(4)Debt as % ofCurrent $(5)Debt as % of12/31/1976FORD $ 653,544,000,000218,035,164 $ 2,997 $6,75444%$5,27157%12/31/1977CARTER $ 718,943,000,000220,239,425 $ 3,2648.9% $7,40544%$5,78556%12/31/1978CARTER $ 789,207,000,000222,584,545 $ 3,5468.6% $8,24543%$6,45555%12/31/1979CARTER $ 845,116,000,000225,055,487 $ 3,7555.9% $9,14641%$7,16852%12/31/1980CARTER $ 930,210,000,000227,224,681 $ 4,0949.0%36.6%9.1%$10,11440%$7,78753%12/31/1981REAGAN $ 1,028,729,000,000229,465,714 $ 4,4839.5% $11,24640%$8,47653%12/31/1982REAGAN $ 1,197,073,000,000231,664,458 $ 5,16715.3% $11,93543%$8,98058%12/31/1983REAGAN $ 1,410,702,000,000233,791,994 $ 6,03416.8% $12,61848%$9,49464%12/31/1984REAGAN $ 1,662,966,000,000235,824,902 $ 7,05216.9% $13,89151%$10,32868%12/31/1985REAGAN $ 1,945,912,000,000237,923,795 $ 8,17916.0% $14,75855%$11,01374%12/31/1986REAGAN $ 2,214,835,000,000240,132,887 $ 9,22312.8% $15,44260%$11,67079%12/31/1987REAGAN $ 2,431,715,000,000242,288,918 $ 10,0368.8% $16,24062%$12,39181%12/31/1988REAGAN $ 2,684,392,000,000244,498,982 $ 10,9799.4%168%21.0%$17,33163%$13,12384%12/31/1989BUSH $ 2,952,994,000,000246,819,230 $ 11,9649.0% $18,52065%$14,05685%12/31/1990BUSH $ 3,364,820,000,000249,464,396 $ 13,48812.7% $19,47769%$14,38794%12/31/1991BUSH $ 3,801,800,000,000252,153,092 $ 15,07711.8% $19,89276%$14,617103%12/31/1992BUSH $ 4,177,009,000,000255,029,699 $ 16,3798.6%49.2%12.3%$20,85479%$14,847110%12/31/1993CLINTON $ 4,535,687,054,406257,782,608 $ 17,5957.4% $21,34682%$15,777112%12/31/1994CLINTON $ 4,800,149,946,143260,327,021 $ 18,4394.8% $22,17283%$16,555111%12/31/1995CLINTON $ 4,988,664,979,014262,803,276 $ 18,9832.9% $23,07682%$17,227110%12/31/1996CLINTON $ 5,323,171,750,783265,228,572 $ 20,0705.7% $24,17583%$18,136111%12/31/1997CLINTON $ 5,502,388,012,375267,783,607 $ 20,5482.4% $25,33481%$19,241107%12/31/1998CLINTON $ 5,614,217,021,195270,248,003 $ 20,7741.1% $26,88377%$20,120103%12/31/1999CLINTON $ 5,776,091,314,225272,690,813 $ 21,1822.0% $27,93976%$21,181100%12/31/2000CLINTON $ 5,662,216,013,697282,192,162 $ 20,065-5.3%22.5%2.8%$29,84767%$22,19990%12/31/2001BUSH $ 5,943,438,563,436285,102,075 $ 20,8473.9% $30,57568%$22,85191%12/31/2002BUSH $ 6,405,707,456,847287,941,220 $ 22,2476.7% $30,80472%N/AN/A12/31/2003BUSH $ 7,001,312,247,818290,788,976 $ 24,0778.2% $31,47277%N/AN/A12/31/2004BUSH $ 7,596,165,867,424293,655,404 $ 25,8687.4%28.9%7.2%$32,93779%N/AN/A12/30/2005BUSH $ 8,170,424,541,313297,869,921 $ 27,4306.0%36.7%7.3%$33,04183%N/AN/AIf that can be shown^ you would see that every time a Bush was in power, the National Debt Doubled.
no other president came halfway to what Bush spends.
Now please explain to me what Bush spends all that $ on?
Health care?
Social security?
Education?
I'm way off arent I?
Yup.
He spends it on Military.
and War.
To me, it is as clear as day that the plan is to push the military to the forfront, allowing the development of new technology (which will help mankind (maybe)), but you have to have an active military, and things to fight about.
Saddam was hired by the CIA, his government was put in place by the US gov't, and he was supplied weapons by the USA, and told who to use them against.
Then when the time was right, they invaded Iraq, cause they basically owned the government, and they did this for the reasons I have already stated.
Oil refineries (pipeline from the Caspian Sea), Protection for Israel from Syria and Iran, and A military base.
If you dispute this, or don't see it, you're hopeless.
Now, this in and of itself is arrogant, not to mention illegal, and shouldn't be allowed to happen as it is happening,
the pretext for the war was a LIE, and a bad one.
The attrocities being committed right now in Iraq by American soldiers (under orders by psycho Commanders) privately hired merc's or not, are the Issue. This is what Im trying to get you to talk about. I don't care about how the CIA hides it's money. I'm sure you're right.
The point is it doesn't fucking matter how they hide it.
The whole formula, the Whole equation is fucked up, and wrong.
That is MY point.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
and how the FUCK havent iu given links to my sources? The fact that you attack me for my lack of links shows you obviously havent read my posts. For those that are lazy:
Federal budget:
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
federalbudget.com (independent)
Prices on supplies:
lightfighter.net
www.eagleindustries.com/prd_detail.asp?ProdID=449
ebay.com
Talk to soldiers:
lightfighter.net
There, according to you, i have completely absolved my assholeness. I have provided completely non BS solid sources from both sides of the industry
And seriously can any of you please try to address my solid and flawless refutation rather than attack me ad hominem? Maybe then i will sound less redunt. Because as of now, everyone who has disagreed with me has only attacked me personally and has not addressed my refutation with any discourse whatsoever. The only one who remotely came close to providing a data source was Icepointa who provided me with a shady Quaker lonnying interpretation of the federal budget. It wasnt inaccurate numners wise, just misleading when they take into account the social security and compensation being spent on veterans as part of the cost of defense.
Federal budget:
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
federalbudget.com (independent)
Prices on supplies:
lightfighter.net
www.eagleindustries.com/prd_detail.asp?ProdID=449
ebay.com
Talk to soldiers:
lightfighter.net
There, according to you, i have completely absolved my assholeness. I have provided completely non BS solid sources from both sides of the industry
And seriously can any of you please try to address my solid and flawless refutation rather than attack me ad hominem? Maybe then i will sound less redunt. Because as of now, everyone who has disagreed with me has only attacked me personally and has not addressed my refutation with any discourse whatsoever. The only one who remotely came close to providing a data source was Icepointa who provided me with a shady Quaker lonnying interpretation of the federal budget. It wasnt inaccurate numners wise, just misleading when they take into account the social security and compensation being spent on veterans as part of the cost of defense.
You don't understand.
No one can prove where the money is spent. YOu want sources for a Black BUdget?
lol
foolish!
you have to see the big picture, and use deduction to prove your case.
Thats how Sherlock Holmes solves crimes.
I am not disputing your facts. Did I ever?
I am saying that no matter what your sources say, there are things missing,
important things
like Why Halliburton needs so much money.
They are not telling you how they are spending it. They claim ridiculous expenses, as you have already confirmed for me.
yes this is how they hide their funds.
It's how they afford to dominate towns and villages, along with existing refineries and factories.
You are arguing that it's ok to Privatize the military, and I don't agree.
I think its fucking Evil.
Greed - A deadly sin.
The love of money - The root of all evil.
WHy can't you understand?
Is your helmet smacking into the special bus's window, causing your brain to skip back to where it started, ending in looping rationale?
You have faith and believe in your government. That's cute, really.
No one can prove where the money is spent. YOu want sources for a Black BUdget?
lol
foolish!
you have to see the big picture, and use deduction to prove your case.
Thats how Sherlock Holmes solves crimes.
I am not disputing your facts. Did I ever?
I am saying that no matter what your sources say, there are things missing,
important things
like Why Halliburton needs so much money.
They are not telling you how they are spending it. They claim ridiculous expenses, as you have already confirmed for me.
yes this is how they hide their funds.
It's how they afford to dominate towns and villages, along with existing refineries and factories.
You are arguing that it's ok to Privatize the military, and I don't agree.
I think its fucking Evil.
Greed - A deadly sin.
The love of money - The root of all evil.
WHy can't you understand?
Is your helmet smacking into the special bus's window, causing your brain to skip back to where it started, ending in looping rationale?
You have faith and believe in your government. That's cute, really.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
wow how many times do i have to show youl HE SPENDS IT ALL ON HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE MAKES UP FOR ABOUT 20 BILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN ALL DEFENSE COSTS COMBINED THEN WHEN YOU ADD IN HEALTHCARE WHICH IS LIKE 180-200 BILLION DOLLARS... Yea youre right, education needs way more money they only get 3% of the annual budget.
Jesus christ its pretty plain and simple. You give numbers but you don't analyze them. Instead you come up with your own GUESS as to what the most expensive thing the government spends on is. Military spending really isn't as expensive as people think. Some people miss the fact that we pay a lot of money out to roughly 65 million old people every year. Lots of money im talking like hundreds of grand. And all that adds up to more money than all of defense. So there you go. wrong again. For reference please refer to either the government version of the federal budget or refer to the liberal independent study.
Jesus christ its pretty plain and simple. You give numbers but you don't analyze them. Instead you come up with your own GUESS as to what the most expensive thing the government spends on is. Military spending really isn't as expensive as people think. Some people miss the fact that we pay a lot of money out to roughly 65 million old people every year. Lots of money im talking like hundreds of grand. And all that adds up to more money than all of defense. So there you go. wrong again. For reference please refer to either the government version of the federal budget or refer to the liberal independent study.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
Yea no shit Saddam was CONTACTED by the CIA everyone knows that. I hate how some of you people like to act like its some sort of secret no one knows about. Haha even the princeton review book for AP US history talks about that!
Its your interpretation of the events that is sooooooooooooooooooooo sad.
Heres what i think youre trying to say:
In 1959 Dwight D Eisenhower, told the CIA to go throwdown Abd al-Karim Qasim and put Saddam Hussein in power. The republican party then planned to invade their puppet 43 years later to get some Oil and portection for Iran, a country that is an enemy of the USA. The GOP also planned this because it predicted that in about 20 years it will become allies with Syria and in 43 years, Israel would still exist. So they let Saddam stay in power for about 38 years before they started harassing him and finally invaded him.
Correct?
Wrong!
Let me inform you a little about history. In 1959, there were these bad guys called the Soviets. They liked to make really really big bombs that involved atoms splitting. These were called NUCLEAR WEAPONS. These clever russians liked to take about 20 of them, put them each on a seperate missile, then load all 20 into one huge missile that could pretty much hit anywhere in the world. For places they couldnt reach, they used big airplanes and guarded them with smaller planes called MIGS. These soviets were bent on world domination. They had already invaded poland, ukraine, georgia, and all those small eastern european states. Their ruler was named Stalin and he liked to oppress people and use his secret police to kill people who didn't like Stalin.
Ok well these Soviet guys really wanted all of Europe like the Nazis had. These euro-pussies (France, Britain, Turkey, blah blah) pleaded for the USA to guard them while they were rebuilding from getting their asses kicked (then saved by the USA) in WWII. We formed an alliance called NATO. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was a binding contract that said we must perform war on the enemies of any NATO member if that country came under attack or the threat thereof. Stupid Americans why would we tie ourselves into something this dumb?! Oh thats right because we had a liberal president named Harry S. Truman (mr. let's push for a 3rd nuke on japan the day of their surrender!) who created the FBI and CIA!
Ok fast forward to 1959. The soviets had their eyes on afghanistan for quite a while now and they wanted Iran, turkey, iraq, and britain as well. Too bad, the 4 of them signed a pact called the Anti Soviet Bahgdad pact. Nananabooboo right? WRONG! Well you see, ski pimp, the soviets have these guys called the KGB. They puppeteered this guy named Qasim and that dude overthrew the Iraqi Monarchy and backed Iraq out of the Anti Soviet Bahgdad pact. I mean, seeing as how the pact was named after a city in Iraq itself, Iraq backing out was kind of a big deal. Now France and Britain got super worried. they were all like yo US pleeaaasseee help us out.
Good thing by now we had a republican in office. He was Dwight D Eisenhower who commanded like all the troops in WWII! He knew that WWIII would be a huuuge mistake so he conducted his business secretly. We HAD to help out NATO so what we did was ask this guy Saddam Hussein (seemed pretty stable at the time) to over throw Qasim so that the Soviets didnt move nukes close to Europe and potentially blow everyone up.
So really, at the time all we did was 1. Avoid WW3 with humongous nuclear weapons, 2. Follow our binding contract with NATO, and 3 Overthrow a KGB funded regime.
Now Saddam was a good boy all the way up until the 1980s when he started to turn sour on us for helping us out getting our hostages back from the Ayotolla. Saddam went on a huge power trip with all the money that we gave him that was supposed to go towards helping the well being of Iraq. He used it instead to buy hookers, cars, booze, and oil, and above all, weapons! Its not our fault he killed kurds, shi'ites, invaded kuwait, and funded al quaeda! We couldn'tve know what he was going to do in the 90s during the 50's. Any person could potentially go on power trips.
So whats the moral of my utterly patronizing history lesson you ask skipimp? Well theres a few, one is practice fiscal conservatism. Dont practice fiscal liberalism and go taxing people then creating the shady CIA. Another is practice diplomatic conservatism. This country was founded on the Monroe Doctrine and Truman had to go fuck it up with the Truman Doctrine (no matter what, if a country is in need against communism, we must defend it). So over all, it's dont elect presidents who are too far on the left. (well technically truman wasn't elected, he was the vice president of roosevelt).
But most importanlty, ski pimp, it's don't make alarmist remarks about what the USA did in the past without understanding what actually happened. You seem to love taking things out of context.
Its your interpretation of the events that is sooooooooooooooooooooo sad.
Heres what i think youre trying to say:
In 1959 Dwight D Eisenhower, told the CIA to go throwdown Abd al-Karim Qasim and put Saddam Hussein in power. The republican party then planned to invade their puppet 43 years later to get some Oil and portection for Iran, a country that is an enemy of the USA. The GOP also planned this because it predicted that in about 20 years it will become allies with Syria and in 43 years, Israel would still exist. So they let Saddam stay in power for about 38 years before they started harassing him and finally invaded him.
Correct?
Wrong!
Let me inform you a little about history. In 1959, there were these bad guys called the Soviets. They liked to make really really big bombs that involved atoms splitting. These were called NUCLEAR WEAPONS. These clever russians liked to take about 20 of them, put them each on a seperate missile, then load all 20 into one huge missile that could pretty much hit anywhere in the world. For places they couldnt reach, they used big airplanes and guarded them with smaller planes called MIGS. These soviets were bent on world domination. They had already invaded poland, ukraine, georgia, and all those small eastern european states. Their ruler was named Stalin and he liked to oppress people and use his secret police to kill people who didn't like Stalin.
Ok well these Soviet guys really wanted all of Europe like the Nazis had. These euro-pussies (France, Britain, Turkey, blah blah) pleaded for the USA to guard them while they were rebuilding from getting their asses kicked (then saved by the USA) in WWII. We formed an alliance called NATO. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was a binding contract that said we must perform war on the enemies of any NATO member if that country came under attack or the threat thereof. Stupid Americans why would we tie ourselves into something this dumb?! Oh thats right because we had a liberal president named Harry S. Truman (mr. let's push for a 3rd nuke on japan the day of their surrender!) who created the FBI and CIA!
Ok fast forward to 1959. The soviets had their eyes on afghanistan for quite a while now and they wanted Iran, turkey, iraq, and britain as well. Too bad, the 4 of them signed a pact called the Anti Soviet Bahgdad pact. Nananabooboo right? WRONG! Well you see, ski pimp, the soviets have these guys called the KGB. They puppeteered this guy named Qasim and that dude overthrew the Iraqi Monarchy and backed Iraq out of the Anti Soviet Bahgdad pact. I mean, seeing as how the pact was named after a city in Iraq itself, Iraq backing out was kind of a big deal. Now France and Britain got super worried. they were all like yo US pleeaaasseee help us out.
Good thing by now we had a republican in office. He was Dwight D Eisenhower who commanded like all the troops in WWII! He knew that WWIII would be a huuuge mistake so he conducted his business secretly. We HAD to help out NATO so what we did was ask this guy Saddam Hussein (seemed pretty stable at the time) to over throw Qasim so that the Soviets didnt move nukes close to Europe and potentially blow everyone up.
So really, at the time all we did was 1. Avoid WW3 with humongous nuclear weapons, 2. Follow our binding contract with NATO, and 3 Overthrow a KGB funded regime.
Now Saddam was a good boy all the way up until the 1980s when he started to turn sour on us for helping us out getting our hostages back from the Ayotolla. Saddam went on a huge power trip with all the money that we gave him that was supposed to go towards helping the well being of Iraq. He used it instead to buy hookers, cars, booze, and oil, and above all, weapons! Its not our fault he killed kurds, shi'ites, invaded kuwait, and funded al quaeda! We couldn'tve know what he was going to do in the 90s during the 50's. Any person could potentially go on power trips.
So whats the moral of my utterly patronizing history lesson you ask skipimp? Well theres a few, one is practice fiscal conservatism. Dont practice fiscal liberalism and go taxing people then creating the shady CIA. Another is practice diplomatic conservatism. This country was founded on the Monroe Doctrine and Truman had to go fuck it up with the Truman Doctrine (no matter what, if a country is in need against communism, we must defend it). So over all, it's dont elect presidents who are too far on the left. (well technically truman wasn't elected, he was the vice president of roosevelt).
But most importanlty, ski pimp, it's don't make alarmist remarks about what the USA did in the past without understanding what actually happened. You seem to love taking things out of context.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
no you don't understand! How many friggin times do i have to point out that when the DoD does shady dealings they hide it within business contracts?! Thats how they fund classified operations. But doing so doesn't mathematically change the entire Defense budget! Therefore, after reading the federal budget (which is much more complicated than what i just gave, theres like 8 pages detailing each section so theres like 100 pages every year), you can't say defense is more than social security.
Its just a plain fact that theres more being spent on social security than defense. If the government was trying to hide something, and we were spending more on defense than social security, then that means there would be another like 100 billion (a very tiny lead by that)- 1 trillion dollars being spent on defense that no one knows about! Do you have any idea how many people would be involved by then? How could anyone hide an extra 100 billion dollar expenditure in one year? Like first of all where would you get that money? The Fed ain't gonna print it, that would ruin the value of money and their power. Plus the Fed has to release everything they do so that the NYSE doenst crash and all your parents lose their jobs. I mean and who would loan the government 100 billion dollars? And little old sally working on a middleclass salary, a secretary in accounting or human resources paying out the 100 billion dollars wouldn't notice anything?
I don't know sound pretty far fetched to me... Less likely than there being a space ship burried in roswell.
Ok if you think money is the root of all evil, fine theres nothing more to argue. That would mean everyone is evil because everyone on this earth wants more money. Dont be a hypocrite and say you dont. If you don't want money you wouldn't be skiing. period.
But i thought you mightve had a rational brain and thought that something shady was going on based on the dealings something like laundering in your first post.
All i am doing is clarifying what is actually going on because you have proven again and again you really don't know much about the subject...
Its just a plain fact that theres more being spent on social security than defense. If the government was trying to hide something, and we were spending more on defense than social security, then that means there would be another like 100 billion (a very tiny lead by that)- 1 trillion dollars being spent on defense that no one knows about! Do you have any idea how many people would be involved by then? How could anyone hide an extra 100 billion dollar expenditure in one year? Like first of all where would you get that money? The Fed ain't gonna print it, that would ruin the value of money and their power. Plus the Fed has to release everything they do so that the NYSE doenst crash and all your parents lose their jobs. I mean and who would loan the government 100 billion dollars? And little old sally working on a middleclass salary, a secretary in accounting or human resources paying out the 100 billion dollars wouldn't notice anything?
I don't know sound pretty far fetched to me... Less likely than there being a space ship burried in roswell.
Ok if you think money is the root of all evil, fine theres nothing more to argue. That would mean everyone is evil because everyone on this earth wants more money. Dont be a hypocrite and say you dont. If you don't want money you wouldn't be skiing. period.
But i thought you mightve had a rational brain and thought that something shady was going on based on the dealings something like laundering in your first post.
All i am doing is clarifying what is actually going on because you have proven again and again you really don't know much about the subject...
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
actually im the only one reading anyones posts.
yea i know im writing like pages for each response but its easy to accuse in one line. its much harder to defend in one line.
yea i know im writing like pages for each response but its easy to accuse in one line. its much harder to defend in one line.
