Ukraine

[Ndaccountant]

Reps to your sir

 

[Grahambo]

Reps to your sir

I'd like to thank God for giving me the ability to Google. lol

I'm just a huge fan of history. It's fascinating to learn about the history of, well, everything. lol

 

[gkIrish]

i <3 America. Russia ain't got nothing on this.


School Uses Man's Pants for National Anthem After They Don't Have a Flag at Game | Bleacher Report

 

[Bogtrotter07]

i hear you Bogs...i was really just looking for a way to get that stat in.

it is the #1 reason for the fall of the former soviet union.

bringing it into the current crisiis wiith Putin...imagine what would happen to world politics if oil today went from $100 a barrell down to $25 a barrell quickly, and stayed at that level?

everything would change. russia, the middle east, china, iran, even the US.

King Oil is always the most important player in the Game of Thrones...

See I agree with everything you say, except that resulted in the downfall of the USSR. It was fucked way before that happened. Conversely, if the USSR were competently administered, they could have come out of it well. Instead.

Hell when I was in the service, pictures from our first high visibility satellites showing miles and miles of tanks parked in empty fields, rusting, most without cannons installed, were being circulated.

Grain reports were lied about by up to 50%, can you even believe that? One-one hundredth of that kind of fraud would result in successful criminal prosecution here.

And Afghanistan, the Soviets were embroiled in a nearly ten year war which cost them men and materials at least at fifteen times the rate of the US at its maximum involvement in Vietnam.

That and they lost the ear of, and any moral authority with poor and under developed third world countries.

No, well before the oil crisis the Soviets insisted on genital-blender contact.

As oil production dropped in the 1988-1991 period, FSU (Former Soviet Union) oil exports plummeted (Figure 2 – Difference between production and consumption). Given the combination of a low quantity of oil exported, and low sales price of oil exports, the FSU (Former Soviet Union) found itself in financial difficulty–it could not afford to pay for food imports, which it badly needed, and the country collapsed.

I’m sure this is only part of the story–but the question that comes to mind is, “How different would history be if, somehow, the Soviet Union had somehow held things together–perhaps with other sources of income, or an International Monetary Fund loan–so that its oil consumption behaved more like that of the rest of the world?” No doubt part of the reason that world oil prices remained low in the 1985 to 2000 period was the low oil consumption of the FSU (Former Soviet Union).

So in other words there were all kind of machinations, economically speaking, that happened in that period. With burned bridges flaming and world leaders like JPII having railed against the Soviets, their options from the world bank, to the next population ready to overthrow a ruthless dictator were limited.

I know it is popular in some circles to paint Reagan as a super leader, more that the semi-conscious President that fell asleep in his audience with the Pope, that often forgot what country he was in or even his dogs name, but the fact is, we want to believe in someone, and I don't even think his advisors were that good. The savings and loan crisis and numerous other blemishes occurred, including rampant spending (higher than during the war years with FDR) that wouldn't have happened in an administration that was capable of playing such effective economic chess, on the stage of the world-board.

Let me make it clear. I am not saying any Democrat is any better. I do insist on calling the party by the right name. All in all I think the Democratic presidents have been a little kinder to the whole populace, but the last competent president we had was elected last before my birth, Eisenhower, or maybe Kennedy, but he was a little to war oriented for me, and a little slow on the civil rights issues. Maybe if he would have had a chance to finish his first term . . .

The point is, I will argue with anyone who says a President accomplished any great and sweeping thing with the exception of, ALincoln, 13th Amendment; TRoosevelt, infrastructure groundwork (Parks, too!) consolidation of American power and entry on to the world stage as a leading diplomatic and military power; FDRoosevelt, leading America out of the Depression; HTruman; desegregating the military, and making the next biggest moral decision in the history of mankind. Civil rights under LBJ should be mentioned, but I object to LBJ, I see him as a war profiteer and I object to the assassination of JFK. Segregation should have been ended but for the Depression and WWII, so it wasn't fast or painless enough, IMO.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

WWII helped get the US out of the depression

Massive government spending got the US out of the depression, it just so happened to be military spending.

 

[FLDomer]

Massive government spending got the US out of the depression, it just so happened to be military spending.

Precisely....

 

[Bogtrotter07]

See.

Government spending isn't a defined enough term. In fact, spending is inaccurate.

It wasn't the spending; it was the production, or better yet the producing.

Post depression infrastructural improvements, enlistment for WW II, all war and non war production and the GI bill not only ended the Depression, but it raised a significant portion of the poor up into the worlds greatest middle class. The upper edges of the middle classes extended into what most would identify as the wealthy. This is only being reversed today.

Proof that it is production, not spending is found with the Reagan administration. The Reagan Administation outspent FDR's highest war years budget in adjusted dollars, and created a recession for its troubles. You have to infuse the economy, not put it in profiteers pockets. During the Reagan years, the only ones that profited were armament manufactures, big oil, etc. I ought to know. Every $2,500 I put into Exxon in the early eighties, returned about $8,000 to me in dividends and stock appreciation!

No, with depression, and WWII production, employment was supercharged. Money was pumped into the economy.

During the Reagan years and since 2008 the only ones that have profited are the already wealthy. Not the same thing at all.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

See.

Government spending isn't a defined enough term. In fact, spending is inaccurate.

It wasn't the spending; it was the production, or better yet the producing.

Post depression infrastructural improvements, enlistment for WW II, all war and non war production and the GI bill not only ended the Depression, but it raised a significant portion of the poor up into the worlds greatest middle class. The upper edges of the middle classes extended into what most would identify as the wealthy. This is only being reversed today.

Proof that it is production, not spending is found with the Reagan administration. The Reagan Administation outspent FDR's highest war years budget in adjusted dollars, and created a recession for its troubles. You have to infuse the economy, not put it in profiteers pockets. During the Reagan years, the only ones that profited were armament manufactures, big oil, etc. I ought to know. Every $2,500 I put into Exxon in the early eighties, returned about $8,000 to me in dividends and stock appreciation!

No, with depression, and WWII production, employment was supercharged. Money was pumped into the economy.

During the Reagan years and since 2008 the only ones that have profited are the already wealthy. Not the same thing at all.

Yes, government money. The problem with the New Deal was that it wasn't ambitious enough. WW2 just so happened to be the greatest public works project in history. A Keynesian dream.

Even with the Regan military buildup, military spending as a percentage of GDP was much lower than WW2 levels.

I bring this up because I hear so many people who are against government spending during recessions, yet think WW2 got us out of the depression. They're the same thing.

 

[wizards8507]

Yes, government money. The problem with the New Deal was that it wasn't ambitious enough. WW2 just so happened to be the greatest public works project in history. A Keynesian dream.

Even with the Regan military buildup, military spending as a percentage of GDP was much lower than WW2 levels.

I bring this up because I hear so many people who are against government spending during recessions, yet think WW2 got us out of the depression. They're the same thing.

WW2 didn't end the depression because of stimulus or government spending. It ended the depression because we were building bombs. Those were the proverbial "shovel ready jobs" that were completely absent from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Full employment is also pretty easy WHEN THERE'S A DRAFT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

The great irony is that the big-government types criticize Reaganomics as "trickle down," when the real "top down" approach comes from the GOVERNMENT, not business.

 

[pumpdog20]

i <3 America. Russia ain't got nothing on this.


School Uses Man's Pants for National Anthem After They Don't Have a Flag at Game | Bleacher Report

This is actually great, but why wasn't there a flag in the gym, is the question.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Ukraine and Syria's Common Path to Resolution:

The Middle East is divided by religion and tribe. Ukraine is divided by culture, reinforced by religion. Russia is held together by history and power. America has interests in these areas but mainly for peace and stability. Israel too has interests in the Middle East. But there are Russian interests as well, which most likely do not include administering a struggling and fiscally-draining Ukraine. European Union trade membership for western or even all of Ukraine might be possible with Crimean autonomy and Russian influence, but NATO membership would be almost an act of war. What would the U.S.’s position be if Canada decided to join a Russian military alliance?

That Turchynov reversed himself and vetoed the anti-Russian language bill and offered to negotiate on increased Crimea autonomy are enormous steps in the right direction. In Syria the only way out for the moderates may be a similar negotiated decentralization agreement with Assad. There was an earlier Alawite state. Indeed, both of these discussions are advancing but need patience. Negotiation and decentralization are the only ways forward and hot rhetoric and simplistic solutions from outside only make things worse. The reasonable steps toward restraint proposed by former U.S. ambassadors to Ukraine, William B. Taylor, Steven K. Pifer, and John E. Herbst are the place to begin.

 

[chicago51]

WW2 didn't end the depression because of stimulus or government spending. It ended the depression because we were building bombs. Those were the proverbial "shovel ready jobs" that were completely absent from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Full employment is also pretty easy WHEN THERE'S A DRAFT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

The great irony is that the big-government types criticize Reaganomics as "trickle down," when the real "top down" approach comes from the GOVERNMENT, not business.

These statements contradict each other.

Yes, government money. The problem with the New Deal was that it wasn't ambitious enough. WW2 just so happened to be the greatest public works project in history. A Keynesian dream.

Even with the Regan military buildup, military spending as a percentage of GDP was much lower than WW2 levels.

I bring this up because I hear so many people who are against government spending during recessions, yet think WW2 got us out of the depression. They're the same thing.

The WPA did help cut employment in almost half from 33-37.

WWII helped get the US out of the depression

Yes it did. I was referring to the more global effects of periods of depression.

The world was pretty much in a global depression in the early 30s. It happened at slightly different times for different countries. During periods of economic depression you tend to see rise of extreme authoritarian parties. During that time we did all around the world with far right (fascism) and far left (communism). Extreme parties is what leads to war. The US was not immune from these influences but even though FDR was a lefty we did a good job as country not drifting too far in any one direction that we help save capitalism around the world.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

These statements contradict each other.

I think his point is that spending on things other than "shovel-ready jobs" doesn't do much to reduce unemployment.

 

[gkIrish]

This is actually great, but why wasn't there a flag in the gym, is the question.

Commies stole it and thought we wouldn't be able to do the anthem.

 

[wizards8507]

These statements contradict each other.

No. They don't. Keynesian "stimulus" economics don't care what you spend money on, so long as you're spending. There's no distinction between spending that provides DIRECT, immediate labor (the military, infrastructure projects) and those that are just spending for spending's sake ("investments" in failed solar companies).

 

[chicago51]

Interview with Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus-New York University and Princeton University / Contributing Editor-The Nation Magazine & Author, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, Website: The Nation, for his take on the situation in Ukraine. He has some good prospective on US/Russia relations.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qJCXAqgt-6g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>)

 

[WestCoast]

i <3 America. Russia ain't got nothing on this.


School Uses Man's Pants for National Anthem After They Don't Have a Flag at Game | Bleacher Report

You think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while I'm wearing these bad boys? Forget about it.

 

[chicago51]

No. They don't. Keynesian "stimulus" economics don't care what you spend money on, so long as you're spending. There's no distinction between spending that provides DIRECT, immediate labor (the military, infrastructure projects) and those that are just spending for spending's sake ("investments" in failed solar companies).

There is smart and stupid spending just like there is smart and stupid tax cuts. Keynesian stimulus absolutely care where you spend the money. I've read a lot of on modern monetary theory which is the 21st century version of the Keynesian theory is the government should contract and expand its spending based on the growth of private industry. The MMT theory is the government should be the employer of last resort not the spending for the sake of spending.

As far as failed solar companies I agree we shouldn't be subsidizing energy companies period. I believe climate change is real but throwing money to risky start ups is not how I would solve the problem.

 

[Irish#1]

Massive government spending got the US out of the depression, it just so happened to be military spending.

I'm probably splitting hairs here, but I believe the economy was climbing out of the depression by the time we got involved in WWII. The depression is typically referred to as 1929-39. WWII allowed the economy to take that next step and wipe away any lingering effects of the depression.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Yes, government money. The problem with the New Deal was that it wasn't ambitious enough. WW2 just so happened to be the greatest public works project in history. A Keynesian dream.

Even with the Regan military buildup, military spending as a percentage of GDP was much lower than WW2 levels.

I bring this up because I hear so many people who are against government spending during recessions, yet think WW2 got us out of the depression. They're the same thing.

WW2 didn't end the depression because of stimulus or government spending. It ended the depression because we were building bombs. Those were the proverbial "shovel ready jobs" that were completely absent from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Full employment is also pretty easy WHEN THERE'S A DRAFT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

The great irony is that the big-government types criticize Reaganomics as "trickle down," when the real "top down" approach comes from the GOVERNMENT, not business.

Thank you for proving my point. Wizard pointed out a great difference. Government has become so massive (a country of over 300 M people versus a country of 100 M people just making the conversion from agrarian and industrial to post industrial economy) that small stimuluses' aimed at the rich do nothing but make the rich richer. They don't effect the whole economy in the positive manner needed to improve the economy. We are in fact past the point of being able to stimulate our way out of recession caused by stupidity and greed.

But I don't want to take up this thread on that subject. I will start a new thread with this post and link back for anyone that would care to comment.


http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/lep...mulation-now-means-rich-get-richer.html#links
Irish Envy | Notre Dame Football Discussion > Outside The Lines > The Leprechaun Lounge
Economic stimulation now means the rich get richer. Economic stimulation now means the rich get richer.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[potownhero]

For those who were wondering what economic interests benefitted...

"Pittenger and other members of Congress would like to help Eastern Europe overcome its dependence on Russian natural gas with liquified gas supplies from the US and its allies in the Middle East, such as Kuwait."

"Currently, the US exports no natural gas. Companies like ExxonMobil, however, are lobbying Washington policymakers to finally issue the necessary permits to build export terminals. More and more Republicans support the move."

"The Crimean crisis should be reason enough, the Republicans argue, to quickly approve the construction projects. Only then can liquified gas be exported from the US."


Fuel for the next cold war | World | DW.DE | 11.03.2014

I just want to note that just because it's in some groups economic interest, doesn't mean that there aren't other real reasons for supporting a side. That said, if we as a country aren't willing to honor our commitment, I wonder why President Clinton obligated us to it in the first place. I also wonder how many other times over the next few years our bluff will be called now that they know we bluff (Syria and Ukraine).

 

[NDohio]

So, it's being reported that Russia says it intercepted a US drone over Crimea.

Interesting. What's our response?



Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Interesting. What's our response?

If your football innocuously ends up in the backyard of a friendly neighbor, you politely request its return. But if it not-so-innocuously ends up in a restricted area, you forget about it and pretend nothing happened.

 

[Ndaccountant]

So, it's being reported that Russia says it intercepted a US drone over Crimea.

Interesting. What's our response?



Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

 

[Emcee77]

That wasn't her toe, dude. Fucking amateurs.

 

[woolybug25]

That wasn't her toe, dude. Fucking amateurs.

Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish. These fucking amateurs...

 

[chicago51]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/1...imean-border-ukraine-says.html?_r=0&referrer=

 

[NDohio]

If your football innocuously ends up in the backyard of a friendly neighbor, you politely request its return. But if it not-so-innocuously ends up in a restricted area, you forget about it and pretend nothing happened.

Good call. That's exactly what is happening.

 

[BobD]

So by an almost 96% margin Crimea votes to join Russia and the USA says they won't recognize it.......does that sound a little bit funny to anyone else?

I know there is a lot more to the story with the Ukraine and all, but there is just something odd about a news headline saying the US opposes a free election.

those damned democratic Russians!