Usa Thread

[Bangkoktraveler]

I think Carter got a poor deal, if his military solution to the Iran hostages had been successful he would have got back in, but instead it was left to Reagan to negotiate with the terrorists to free them.

 

A discourse on the economy at the time for HH to sneer at.

 

Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.

 

Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s.

 

Summary

 

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.

 

Argument

 

In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Ronald Reagan blamed this on Jimmy Carter, and went on to win the White House. Reagan then caught the business cycle on an upswing, for what conservatives call "the Seven Fat Years" or "the longest economic expansion in peacetime history."

 

Were either of these presidents responsible for their fortune with the economy? No. Carter battled the peak of an inflationary trend that began in 1965. In the following chart, take special notice of the long, slow climb in the inflation column:

 

I'm not going to try to post tables, here's the link.

 

 

The USA has had to pay dearly for every war we fought in. We have to pay for the war and we have to 'suffer' the consequences for that 'sacrifice'.

[Flashermac]

Things started to go haywire when Wilson ran for reelection on the promise "He kept of out of war", and no sooner had begun his second term then he did everything he could to get the US into the war. Wilson naively thought that Germany's defeat would lead to an honorable peace that would last. But France, with Britain's support, saw to it that that did not happen. When the German delegates were handed the Treat of Versailles to sign and saw how far different it was from Wilson's "Fourteen Points" (on which they had surrendered), they were shocked. Clemanceau sneered and Lloyd George openly laughed at them. If Wilson had kept his nose out, Europe would have fought its war to a conclusion and probably come up with a better peace that actually happened. At least there would have been no "stab in the back" myth for someone like Hitler to exploit.

 

The American public became isolationist in response, though FDR did his best to get the US into WWII anyway. Japan finally accomodated him. Since the end of WWII, the US government has not been able to keep its hands off the rest of the world, whether it concerns us or not.

[Julian2]

Well Kipling did try to warn you.

 

Take up the White Man’s burden—

 

Send forth the best ye breed—

 

Go send your sons to exile

 

To serve your captives' need

 

To wait in heavy harness

 

On fluttered folk and wild—

 

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

 

Half devil and half child

[Flashermac]

Time for the old chesnut ...

 

Man: Do you like Kipling?

 

Blonde: I don't know. I've never kipled.

 

 

""War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

 

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

 

MGen Smedley Butler, USMC

 

http://en.wikipedia....War_Is_a_Racket

[Julian2]

The US did seem to end up with most of the worlds money after WW1, drop a few bucks in the 1930s, then pick it up again with interest in WW2.

Later wars weren't as profitable because they had to fight the major part of them themselves rather than play the part of moneylender to the other combatants.

[Flashermac]

Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t

 

As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.

 

Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the intent/character of the chief executive. However, the statement itself does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written and signed.

 

From Wikipedia: The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.

 

Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy – not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by “executive fiat.†Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow – or expand upon.

 

Further, Barack Obama has continued to backslide on his campaign promise not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law.

 

After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that signing the bill “will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,†while executive director of the Human Rights Watch blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.â€

 

Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States.

...

 

 

My link (Actually, Congress's original bill was worse than this one! )

[cavanami]

The US did seem to end up with most of the worlds money after WW1, drop a few bucks in the 1930s, then pick it up again with interest in WW2.

Later wars weren't as profitable because they had to fight the major part of them themselves rather than play the part of moneylender to the other combatants.

Not the US but the international bankers that lent money to both sides!

[Bangkoktraveler]

Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t

 

As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.

 

Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the intent/character of the chief executive. However, the statement itself does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written and signed.

 

From Wikipedia: The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.

 

Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy – not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by “executive fiat.†Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow – or expand upon.

 

Further, Barack Obama has continued to backslide on his campaign promise not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law.

 

After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that signing the bill “will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,†while executive director of the Human Rights Watch blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.â€

 

Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States.

...

 

 

My link (Actually, Congress's original bill was worse than this one! )

 

 

 

NDAA should never have been signed.

[Steve]

Here's my quandry. I hate that Obama is for it and would gladly not vote for him because of that and other things. So, can HH, Flash and others tell me that Romney, Perry or Gingrich (the likely nominees) would NOT have signed it or even worse backed a stronger version of it?

 

As far as civil liberties it seems to be Paul or no one, with regards to the major candidates.

 

The inconsistency in the Obama thrashing (and its deserved) is that 'your' man is worse.

 

Which shows us how f*cked up the country is given the choices we have.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Here's my quandry. I hate that Obama is for it and would gladly not vote for him because of that and other things. So, can HH, Flash and others tell me that Romney, Perry or Gingrich (the likely nominees) would NOT have signed it or even worse backed a stronger version of it?

 

As far as civil liberties it seems to be Paul or no one, with regards to the major candidates.

 

The inconsistency in the Obama thrashing (and its deserved) is that 'your' man is worse.

 

Which shows us how f*cked up the country is given the choices we have.

 

 

You should be Arizona.

The State passed a law dealing with Ethnic Studies. If the program speaks about overthrowing the United States - it can't be taught - against the law.

 

My problem is when the southern part of Arizona was purchased from Mexico - known as the Gadsen Purchase - 2 signers signed

the treaty. The two parts were the United States of America and the United States of Mexico.

 

I suspect 'remember the Alamo' can't be taught in Arizona schools because the Mexican

State of Texas was and finally was able to totally rebel from their parent country - United States of Mexico.