Bush economic policy approval soaring

[NullPointerException]

lon, you don't make sense or give enough background for your opinions. Also, you have this obsession with a "money losing" industry receiving more money. News flash! NASA, the FDA, EPA, and almost any other government agency will be money losing. The DoD, DARPA, and other government agencies including the Health department(can't recall exact name) contribute billions to "money losing" research.

If you have a bone to pick with the military industrial complex, don't base it on specious reasoning and cowardly attacks on it's profitability.

 

[Ion]

I won't waste my time with the blah-blah below, I will debunk only the first inept claim in it to show what standards are expected from the rest of the post:

...
In wild life or the actual cost of the missle? The material components are a relatively minor element of a missles price and the actual loss for a misfire of your run of the mill missle is something like 1k. But yeah, millions of dollars, I'll support that.
...

Designing, building, manufacturing, transporting and firing missiles are costing in the millions of dollars.

The war in Iraq is over $100 billion wasted.

These $100 billion do not come from the military economy.

These $100 billion come from the consumer economy.

Bush was asking for help in war money in U.N. in October 2003, wasn't he?

And U.N. did rebuke him, didn't it?

That's it:

consumer economy kept in recession because of this wasteful war.

 

[Ion]

lon, you don't make sense or give enough background for your opinions.
...

I don't make sense to someone who is off topic like you are.

 

[NullPointerException]

Okay...

If its off topic because it's a response to an earlier post int he thread which was on topic, is it off topic? I'm not psychic you know, I can't figure out what you think is on topic.

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Okay...

If its off topic because it's a response to an earlier post int he thread which was on topic, is it off topic? I'm not psychic you know, I can't figure out what you think is on topic.

You know, Ion is the reason they made the Ignore list.

 

[Ion]

Re: Okay...

...
...I can't figure out what you think is on topic.

What I think is on topic is 'Bush economic policy approval soaring'.

Bush economic policy is to waste taxes from the consumer economy into the military economy, expecting to get later on oil revenues from this.

It's a blunder.

Obvious after seeing the people he surrounds himself with:

Cheney, people from Halliburton, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc..

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Okay...

You know, Ion is the reason they made the Ignore list.

But you are not using it so it must be that you have no reason.

How are your I.T. and welfare going these days?

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Okay...

But you are not using it so it must be that you have no reason.

How are your I.T. and welfare going these days?

Oh great, thanks to evil Bush's classist tax cut to the rich my boss can give me a good raise and a nice Christmas bonus. Damn that evil president.

 

[NullPointerException]

lon this relates to his economic approval ratings because it explores the alternative view to his spending. Also, 100billion dollars of debt spending does not represent money taken from a consumer economy. It represents funny money changing hands between the U.S. Government and U.S. Corporations and soldiers. You provide no justification for your statements after constant proding, you merely state the same things over and over again. For instance, your posts reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the budget process in the united states. It's also reflects the classic misconception of the zero sum model of government. Transactions can be zero sum, centralized governments cannot if they are "debt spending" because a lot of this debt spending is represented in infinitely renewable funny money(bonds, private loans, etc). Essentially Bush is pumping up the economy artificially by adding money to the consumer economy through tax cuts and military spending which I constantly reiterate. How much of the DOD budget do you think is given directly to American citizens and companies?

*edit* as long as consumer confidence and GDP are high the funny money is infinitenely renewable. Both of these are doing fine.

 

[Ion]

...
...Also, 100billion dollars of debt spending does not represent money taken from a consumer economy. It represents funny money changing hands between the U.S. Government and U.S. Corporations and soldiers.
...

I don't know what 'funny money' means to you:

the "...funny money changing hands between the U.S. Government and U.S. Corporations..." if true is still a tribute to the consumer economy because it has "...U.S. Corporations..." in it, and the "...changing hands..." part in it is likely your fictious world until you have a link to prove it.

I know that the $100 billion come from taxpayers, the Congress approves this spending of the taxes by Bush, and it comes from the taxing of the consumer economy:

.) in U.S. there are the military economy and the consumer economy, and $100 billion they are not funded by the military economy so it must come from and drain the consumer economy;

.) Bush begged for more money in U.N. in October since the military economy is not self-sufficient in this war, and he was was rebuked because of his agenda serving Halliburton.

I also know that you know nothing about what I mentioned in high-tech consumer economy being taxed but lacking investments now:

Ericsson, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel, ST Microelectronics, Motorola, Palm, Intel, etc. they suffer today.

Get a degree in Science and Engineering, work in high-tech for the consumer economy, then and only then talk to me.

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay...

Oh great, thanks to evil Bush's classist tax cut to the rich my boss can give me a good raise and a nice Christmas bonus. Damn that evil president.

You still make less money than I make Gramma, by working like you do as an associate in I.T. with or without the support of your "...evil president." and me by working in high-tech design.

My concern is beyond your I.T. guy horizon.

 

[Troll]

I think I may have to trade names with Ion. I use Troll because it's a nickname I got in the Marines before the net's definition of it. But Ion is just head over heels priding himself in his abilities to actually troll.

I mean with comments like:

"Get a degree in Science and Engineering, work in high-tech for the consumer economy, then and only then talk to me."

and my personal fave:

"I don't make sense to someone who is off topic like you are."

there's gonna be some that wanted to challange him for the title that will now back out of the fight for it.

 

[Ion]

What you quote me on, are conclusions to paragraphs.

Understand the paragraphs.

For example, I remember that in another thread I told you that Bush cannot be a 'liberator' of Iraq, since he supports a dictator similar to Saddam Hussein (Iraq) in Uzbekistan;
you asked for a link;
I provided you with a link;
now is your part to do: do you understand the paragraph (terminated with a conclusion)?

When you don't understand, we don't exchange nicknames, you stay the troll.

 

[Troll]

What you quote me on, are conclusions to paragraphs.

Understand the paragraphs.

For example, I remember that in another thread I told you that Bush cannot be a 'libeartor' of Iraq, since he supports a dictator similar to Hussein in Uzbekistan;
you asked for a link;
I provided you with a link;
now is your part to do: do you understand the paragraph (terminated with a conclusion)?

When you don't understand, we don't exchange nicknames, you stay the troll.

the question is do you understand? You're trying to nullify someone's post to you with some obscure conditions on posting to you.

 

[Ion]

the question is do you understand?
...

Understand what?

That Bush is not a 'liberator' of Iraq like he is not a 'liberator' of Uzbekistan?
I understand that.
You don't, even after I gave you a link about Bush supporting the dictator in Uzbekistan.

That Bush takes tax money from the consumer economy and wastes it in a war for oil in Iraq?
That the consumer economy is hurt?
I understand these.
You don't, even after I spell it slowly in this thread.

You remain the troll.

 

[Troll]

Understand what?

That Bush is not a 'liberator' of Iraq like he is not a 'liberator' of Uzbekistan?
I understand that.
You don't, even after I gave you a link about Bush supporting the dictator in Uzbekistan.

That Bush takes tax money from the consumer economy and wastes it in a war for oil in Iraq?
That the consumer economy is hurt?
I understand these.
You don't, even after I spell it slowly in this thread.

You remain the troll.

You say he can't be a liberator in one place because he's not in another.

You say the consumer economy is down and the numbers are proving you wrong.

Then when someone tries to tell you otherwise you give them some condition as to when they can post to you about the subject. What argument are you trying to make about those? Because whatever argument you are trying tomake is the only thing I don't understand.

 

[Ion]

You say he can't be a liberator in one place because he's not in another.

You say the consumer economy is down and the numbers are proving you wrong.
...

First statement represents correctly what I say.

Second statement is incorrect.

Companies in high-tech working for the consumer economy, did this:

.) Ericsson closed in San Diego,

.) Alcatel and ST Microelectronics did pull money from San Diego,

.) Motorola is hurting in San Diego, and laid-off massive numbers of Engineers,

.) Panasonic is hurting in San Diego,

.) Qualcomm is hurting in San Diego,

.) Nokia scales down investments in San Diego,

.) Intel lays-off Engineers and is hurting in San Diego,

because they pay taxes that fund a war and don't get investments.

Trust me, I am the 802.11b, the 802.11a, the 802.11g and Bluetooth software guy, these days.
I was the 56k modem and set-top-box software guy, before now.

To say "...the numbers are proving you wrong." is sheer imbecility.

The numbers don't count discouraged workers whose unemployment benefits expired, don't count Engineers who are underemployed now, count temporary work like Christams help, and the numbers are misleading as in multilying a quarter by four and proclaim a bigger grow.

 

[Troll]

First statement represents correctly what I say.

Second statement is incorrect.

Companies in high-tech working for the consumer economy, did this:

.) Ericsson closed in San Diego,

.) Alcatel and ST Microelectronics did pull money from San Diego,

.) Motorola is hurting in San Diego,

.) Panasonic is hurting in San Diego,

.) Qualcomm is hurting in San Diego,

.) Nokia scales down invetments in San Diego,

.) Intel lays-off Engineers and is hurting in San Diego,

because they pay taxes that fund a war and don't get investments.

Trust me, I am the 802.11b and the 802.11a and Bluetooth software guy, these days.
I was the 56k modem and set-top-box software guy, before now.

To say "...the numbers are proving you wrong." is sheer imbecility.

Even if what you say is true, that does not mean the entire whole of the consumer market is down, which is exactly what you said when you stated "The consumption in U.S. is down now." in an earlier post. So now you're saying it's just down in the cell phone and mobile wireless industry? Hell a few months ago it was bad in the trucking industry as well, but then it picked up before the overall economy started to pick up. You can't judge or base the economy on one industry. They tried that with the dot.com industry and when it tanked people freaked.

And Qualcomm isn't something I'd use to base a judgement on. They have a noticable trend in layoffs and rehires. Do you recall the layoffs from there when they wanted to buy the stadium?

 

[Jocko]

Trust me, I am the 802.11b, the 802.11a, the 802.11g and Bluetooth software guy, these days.
I was the 56k modem and set-top-box software guy, before now.

To say "...the numbers are proving you wrong." is sheer imbecility.

Apparently, only if I live in San Diego. This may shock you, Ion, but most people live elsewhere and do other things than you do for a living.

Who is it here who includes "the plural of anecdotes is not data"? in his sig line?

By the way, if you're involved in bluetooth work, things are about to get a lot worse for you- that standard's just about moot by now. Of course, it's all George Bush's fault.

 

[Ion]

Even if what you say is true, that does not mean the entire whole of the consumer market is down, ...
...

The whole of the consumer economy is down.

Just about two times per week The San Diego Unio Tribune says so, and the next time I will keep a San Diego Union Tribune so that I can show you a link,

The U.S. consumer economy is down.

I saw in the paper that the total U.S. national payroll is going down since 2000.