Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Continued...


He jut resorted to his tactics of cutting and pasting his word document again - he really isn't as smart as some people think, LMAO. Some people are easily dazzled by BS.


My IQ is nothing special ( low middle 120's as i recall; IQ of most university grads and we have plenty of them on ATS ) so this is not a question of me being 'smart' but one of who provides the source material that can be shown to be most related to reality as much as we can determine such by working from primary defense and intelligence source material. I do work from word doc's as that seems the best way to assemble relevant pieces of information i have already saved and indexed on Cd... It would really be a slog to have to go back to find such quotes every time you decided to restate a position that have been shown to be nothing but opinion or vapid speculation

Some people ARE easily dazzled by large volumes of source material but as you proven in the past reality has a hard time when up against bias and opinions based on nothing at all. I can not help if large volumes of information prevents some from asking me more limited questions and i have certainly never discouraged anyone in the past...


Another interesting fact about stellar is, he is a South African who has never left South Africa, he gets all his " world experience " from the Internet.


I don't see how any of us could benefit by travelling to investigate this specific question but as evident from your ignorance, on so many topics, travelling may not help everyone become better informed whatever the question might be.


Stellar




[edit on 7-1-2007 by StellarX]




posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war


From looking around America and seeing the apathy and lack of planning for even a three day 'bug out bag' for terrorism among Americans .. I have to say that just about every other industrialized and post-industrialized country on this planet have to be better prepared than we are. Heck .. we can't even get our politicians to pass out potassium pills here (we have nuke plants) because they lament that we'd all 'panic'.

Freakn' morons!

So yes .. I'm sure that everyone else is better prepared than we are.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
With stellar ive come to the conclusion that he thinks it was the US and not the USSR who collapsed back in the late 80s early 90s.


I have said this more than once but let me try again! Based on the dollar 'default' the US basically admitted that it was bankrupt in 1971 when it floated the US dollar without gold support and had to rely on creating international treaties and agreements to prop it up and assure that it would stay the preeminent currency. One can sum it up as follows...


Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

cia.gov...


And much of the research i have done suggest that to be a very optimistic view of what has in fact taken place.

The manipulation of oil prices (The world's oil markets also 'happen' to be dollar markets ) i just one of the many tools by which one can easily manipulate the world.


He clearly thinks russia has america beat in every conventional category. Because America is playing 'catch up'.


Since around the mid late 70's the US had few if any strategic aces left and had long since given up the capability of ensuring a long term NATO presence on the European mainland has the Warsaw pact chosen to attack.


Our full military spending this year is expected to be around $$$560,000,000,000 once you read between the lines.


It's far more than that but it does not seem to have affected the strategic balance much by looking at world events....


Originally posted by semperfoo
from where did you get this from semper, gorbachev in 1990 said USSR needs AID and is weakening


Sure he did! The reform process was not exactly 'smooth' and the USSR were in good part built on handouts to start with! What does accepting donations have to do with how strong you are and why would anyone not accept or ask for it? Don't let yourself be distracted from the strategic situation so easily.



ussr never said anything and yes there was a nuclear powered aircraftn but created high amt of radioactive pollution so it never entered service


I am not familiar with the Soviet claims in this regard but i think the "Hustler" were more than capable of doing what such a proposed soviet project could or would in the far future.


Dude. Why did you send me free web hosting in russian?

I saw this on a show on the history channel. I'm sure it has some research to back it up somewhere. Take it at face value if you want. I don't care.


I would be really surprised if the USSR could put that together at that time under such conventional and strategic pressure... ICBMs just seems cheaper and a more logical way to approach the overwhelming American strategic position in the 50's and early 60's....


I dunno man. America was developing a nuclear powered bomber, when the russians found out they wanted to make the americans think that they had a nuclear powered bomber that was operational while the americans were just in the prototype stage with theirs. I heard it was an M-50 Myasishchev (bounder) and there was a document that somehow (espionage?) got in american hands about its capabilities being BS. And the russians had a good poker face back in the day.

Looks cheesy.


They were telling as many half-truths and lies as they have done since but back then it was to obscure their vulnerability and not to hide their strength from those who would rather not think about it.


Unlike the russians the americans actually suceeded in building a nuclear powered bomber. It was called the B-70 Valkyrie. But it had a radiation problem to every time this bird flew.


The Valkyrie was not nuclear powered or , as far as i know, ever supposed to be as is evident from the two(?) planes built....

Please do not presume that i think the US could or would not have been in the USSR's position had it's leaders not sold out so long ago. It's not that i don't see how the US could be strong but that i understand how it was systematically undermined for a century or more...

Stellar


[edit on 7-1-2007 by StellarX]


ape

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

by stellarX
I hope that people will engage me and point out errors so that i may be forced to reconsider some aspects of what i come to believe on this issue


everytime someone corrects anything you say you belittle and ridicule them calling them ignorant and misinformed, you even went as far to say im a disgrace to my country and that im a fool and misinformed blah blah blah when I simply challenged your position and I was infact civil.

I love how you just completly advocate for someones ban when they are just poiinting out the truth to you stellar, if anyones going to get banned you should gl right along with them as you display no class in debate and resort to insults, which you constantly do. go run and cry to the mods like a big baby which displays your weak position in debate.

only communist, nazis and imerialist attack free speech and opress it , see as how you constantly vouche and alter facts about the soviet union it would suprise me if you're not 1 of the 3.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
everytime someone corrects anything


When people correct me i am normally the first to thank them for doing so and if you do not see that happening i don't feel they corrected me.


you say you belittle and ridicule them calling them ignorant and misinformed,


Since when is calling the remarks of ignorant people , and i specific which topics, what it should be belittlement? You ARE misinformed and when i tell people that odds are i could call them far worse and be completely justified in doing so. To call you ignorant and misinformed is being very generous.


you even went as far to say im a disgrace to my country


You are but that's just my opinion and it could change the moment you actually start admitting to some long accepted truths about your country.


and that im a fool and misinformed blah blah blah when I simply challenged your position and I was infact civil.


You constantly attack me and did very little in the way of disputing the information i presented..... The only here attacking the messenger is you!


I love how you just completly advocate for someones ban when they are just poiinting out the truth to you stellar,


Please look at the history i share with rogue on this forum before once again making your ignorance even more widely known. This is not the first time he calls other people 'idiots' and not the first time he has resorted to general insult when his vapid beliefs turns out to have nothing to do with reality.


if anyones going to get banned you should gl right along with them


For what?


as you display no class in debate and resort to insults,


Says the plagiarist and liar... You have no idea how generous i have been in my treatment of your ignorance and if you stick around you will discover that i do know how to deal with you during the times when moderators go AWOL in apparent defense of your misinformation and lies.


which you constantly do. go run and cry to the mods like a big baby which displays your weak position in debate.


As i said before i should be doing it far more often as i always attempt to try give people a chance to behave in a adult fashion. The type of name calling you indulge in will eventually get you banned but probably not soon enough for my taste.


only communist, nazis and imerialist attack free speech and opress it ,


Your such a child! I just can't believe people still accuse others of these types of things
I would laugh if i wasn't already crying!


see as how you constantly vouche and alter facts about the soviet union it would suprise me if you're not 1 of the 3.


Feel free to show that i knowingly post false material! Since I'm so sporting i'll make it easier and invite you to prove that anything i have said is inaccurate or undermines my central position. This is what EVERYONE should attempt to do but few who engage me seem able to concentrate on the facts while leaving the messenger alone.

I don't WANT to believe what i do and if you can't see that you don't know much about me at all.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I would act to apologize.
Having gone through several other posts, I've begun to realize that I was working with my opinion-of-the-moment, rather than a thought-out, historically-supported bias against Ape, and in support of Stellar.

As I've run through the recent and pasts post of his, and others, I've noticed the trends described in page ten are perfectly legitimate complaints of his actions and motive of debate against other members.
And even on my own post, which I thought considerably diplomatic, giving, especially him the benefit of the doubt, and unfairly attacking Ape -- Who, while he may on occasion spout something in anger that I find distasteful, I've noticed only does it when first attacked in that manner - He did nothing more than belittle myself, and answer my questions -- Simple questions from someone outside the immediate debate, with open hostility and insults.

In the name of 'evidence', something he seems so fond of, yet as I've noted, contains questionable legitimacy the majority -- Not all, though the majority of the time, here's a bit of news about the U.S. Economy.
[On a non-link note, I enjoyed opening up the US Economics paper I received today, and finding that because the US Economy has swelled so spectacularly in the past year, especially in the area of corporate employment, certain 'safeguards' such as national interest rates were not to be enacted. {This was a 'downer', so to speak, as people had been expecting, and planning for such a measure.}]
There is no doubt America has become a more apathetic and fatalist nation, and I do not find this a positive evolution of our social culture, though it'll pass, as all things do.
I think, like the 'Free Love' and 'Peace Movement's of the seventies, it is merely a fad, which will change in the coming years.

[Note, because of such a fatalist attitude, many of the links, I imagine I will receive will discuss 'potential downfalls' and the lows, more than the highs, though I believe all will agree the economy is either strong, or has shown a respectable improvement in the past several years.]

Stellar, the only way to negate the volume of evidence I am about to post is to simply say that because it's western, it's wrong. Incorrect. Flawed. Invalid. As you have before.
That simply does not work, and I hope I will receive something more structured, and legitimate than what you have displayed thus far.

--Using a wide variety of sources, so that by sheer numbers, Stellar can simply not discredit/disprove any one inparticular, and erego take them all out--
Further, I'm not going to put up much more than one or two things from Bush, as it's expected he should say good things of the economy.
[White House is not Bush, Stellar. Different groups, studies, and representations.]

www.whitehouse.gov...

www.npr.org...

www.federalreserve.gov...

www.federalreserve.gov...

www.heritage.org...

money.cnn.com...

knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu...

www.fxstreet.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

www.sia.com...

usinfo.state.gov...

waysandmeans.house.gov...

www.ustreas.gov...

news.yahoo.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.breitbart.com...

















[edit on 7-1-2007 by Iblis]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Please insult the United States's economy when it is healthy, and poor.
Not when we have many, strong detractors hitting us simultaneously.


www.chathamhouse.org.uk...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.whartonsp.com...

www.frbatlanta.org...

And I'm stopping there for sheer boredom.

Further, and I'm taking a hint from a CPA-friend at this moment,
The slowing of national economics is a trend.
National economies go through cycles, all of them regardless of their political leadership, as long as they are interdependent among other countries, and have a steady trade format.

We are currently going through a very soft recession, as was predicted during the nineties. The reason you hear about the United State economy hitting a 'soft landing' is because this is the natural cycle, it is intended that we were to fall, the worry was, and still is, how hard.
However, with the latest outlook of fourth-quarter 2006, that hit will not be far at all.

It is my personal prediction that the United States will work towards further energy independence.
Russia will grow to become to have a vastly-strong energy sector, becoming a new supplier and reigniting European energy-wealth.
China's economy will catch up with the country, wages will rise, and exports will fall.
The United States will continue to lead, and follow in many vectors in the following years, maintaining a steady lead, with other nations closing the gap as international economics beome more and more entwined.

Everything, save for that last, admittedly opinionated, un-supported-by-any-fact-but-my-own-base-knowledge statement is true, and has just been supported by many diverse sources.

Do your best, Stellar.


ape

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

by iblis
He did nothing more than belittle myself, and answer my questions -- Simple questions from someone outside the immediate debate, with open hostility and insults.



I appreciate you finally cutting me some slack but I dont not understand this part of your post, I dont recall insulting you or belittling you at all, I have no beef with you or anyone on these forums unless they attack me. take a good look at stellars post directed at me it's the epitomy of ignorance and arrogance which is constantly adressed in regards to his posting. I wish you well in your challenge against stellar, I'm sure he will do everything in his power to take you down to his level. A well thought out post iblis and I will be watching how steller responds, expect a ton of copy pasting on his part =].






[edit on 7-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 7-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Stellar was the one I was referring to Ape, not you.
You only became hostile after I initially took a swing at you, and that is completely fair given the circumstances.


ape

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

by iblis
Stellar was the one I was referring to Ape, not you.


cool, i misunderstood the post. I'm glad everything is straightened out now.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by vK_man


the ruskies lied about their current economic state saying that it was on par, or about to surpass the americans


from where did you get this from semper, gorbachev in 1990 said USSR needs AID and is weakening




One example out of many was stories about the USSR haveing a new long-range bomber powered by atomic engines called the "bounder"
America, in response to this news, was actually developing a nuclear powered long range bomber itself. But later back in 1958, it was later found out to be filled with Soviet mis- and dis-information the US discovered the russians had no such bomber that was in the works with those capabilities. It was just soviet propaganda.


ussr never said anything and yes there was a nuclear powered aircraft
but created high amt of radioactive pollution so it never entered service




Here's Soviet M-30-1 nuclear jet bomber.

By "nuclear" I mean not that it has nuclear bombs on board (surely, it has them, but that is not the matter), I mean it has NUCLEAR JET ENGINE.

Output of this engine was tremendous, allowing reaching hypersonic speeds (but shielding in 1950ies wasn't nearly as good to allow hypersonic cruise flights). But it had also TREMENDOUS radiation pollution.

It was succesfully tested and constructed in 1950ies, but never entered service because of VERY high radiation pollution.
www.technocracy.ca...



you could find some info on these on russian websites:

www.narod.ru
www.xakep.ru

and keldyash centre also ....



[edit on 6-1-2007 by vK_man]

Dude. Why did you send me free web hosting in russian?

I saw this on a show on the history channel. Im sure it has some research to back it up somewhere. Take it at face value if you want. I dont care.

I dunno man. America was developing a nuclear powered bomber, when the russians found out they wanted to make the americans think that they had a nuclear powered bomber that was operational while the americans were just in the prototype stage with theirs. (bounder) and there was a document that somehow (espionage?) got in american hands about its capabilities being BS. And the russians had a good poker face back in the day.



Looks cheesy.

Unlike the russians the americans actually suceeded in building a nuclear powered bomber. It was called the B-70 Valkyrie. But it had a radiation problem to every time this bird flew.


[edit on 123131p://3501pm by semperfoo]




I heard it was an M-50 Myasishchev and there was a document that somehow (espionage?) got in american hands about its capabilities being BS.


no , KGB was well known for planting false info... as i said the politburo cancelled the project because m-30-1 would be like nuking themselves





Why did you send me free web hosting in russian?

they are search engines by the way it is best if you use
www.xakep.ru and search for krutov's archives , you may find technical info on the russian nuclear plane and ask some russsian to help you out
or search russsian version of gazeta or the articles of 70's in the samizdat


Unlike the russians the americans actually suceeded in building a nuclear powered bomber. It was called the B-70 Valkyrie. But it had a radiation problem to every time this bird flew.

b-70 was conventionally powered not nuclear and was one of the experimental aircraft that gained awe and respect in the soviet politburo
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
I would act to apologize.


I will do the adult thing and say that i never much cared for your original 'agreements' ( please?) and realised right there that your 'objectivity' only goes as far as your allowed to keep on believing what you already did. We both know you don't want to apologise so don't even bother gaming me.


As do your apparent ignorance on America's economic strength I'm not so sure where to start but since i responded to a similar issue last night lets see get a idea of how you respond to the CIA basically telling you that American household income have been declining or stagnating since 1975.


Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

cia.gov...


There is plenty of US government sources saying exactly the same but somehow you missed them admitting that.

Here are some more general comments by a American senator as to the current and past states of the American economy in the late twentieth century.


But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can’t fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

The End of Dollar Hegemony



Runaway inflation is a well-known phenomenon. It leads to political and economic chaos of the kind we witnessed in New Orleans. Hopefully we’ll come to our senses and not allow that to happen. But we’re vulnerable and we have only ourselves to blame. The flawed paper money system in existence since 1971 has allowed for the irresponsible spending of the past 30 years. Without a linkage to gold, Washington politicians and the Federal Reserve have no restraints placed on their power to devalue our money by merely printing more to pay the bills run up by the welfare-warfare state.

This system of money is a big contributing factor in the exporting of American jobs, especially in the manufacturing industries.

Since the last link to gold was severed in 1971, the dollar has lost 92% of its value relative to gold, with gold going from $35 to $450 per ounce.

Major adjustment of the dollar and the current account deficit can come any time, and the longer the delay the greater the distortions will be in terms of a correction.

In the meantime we give leverage to our economic competitors and our political adversaries, especially China.

The current system is held together by a false confidence in the U.S. dollar that is vulnerable to sudden changes in the economy and political events.

The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane



Since gold has proven to be the real money of the ages, we see once again a shift in wealth from the West to the East, just as we saw a loss of our industrial base in the same direction. Though Treasury officials deny any U.S. sales or loans of our official gold holdings, no audits are permitted so no one can be certain.

The special nature of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world has allowed this game to last longer than it would have otherwise. But the fact that gold has gone from $252 per ounce to over $600 means there is concern about the future of the dollar. The higher the price for gold, the greater the concern for the dollar. Instead of dwelling on the dollar price of gold, we should be talking about the depreciation of the dollar. In 1934 a dollar was worth 1/20th of an ounce of gold; $20 bought an ounce of gold. Today a dollar is worth 1/600th of an ounce of gold, meaning it takes $600 to buy one ounce of gold.

Though M3 is the most helpful statistic to track Fed activity, it by no means tells us everything we need to know about trends in monetary policy. Total bank credit, still available to us, gives us indirect information reflecting the Fed’s inflationary policies. But ultimately the markets will figure out exactly what the Fed is up to, and then individuals, financial institutions, governments, and other central bankers will act accordingly. The fact that our money supply is rising significantly cannot be hidden from the markets.

What the Price of Gold is Telling Us



The financial press reported last week that the euro, the new currency created only five years ago and used by most European nations, has supplanted the U.S. dollar as the most widely used form of cash internationally. There are now more Euros in circulation worldwide than dollars.

This alone is not necessarily troubling, as the dollar remains the world’s most important reserve currency. About 65% of foreign central bank exchange reserves are still held in dollars, versus only about 25% in euros. And the European Central Bank faces the same inflationary pressures that our own Federal Reserve Bank Governors face, including a growing entitlement burden that threatens economic ruin as both societies age. European politicians want to spend money just as badly as American politicians, and undoubtedly will clamor to inflate-- and thus devalue-- the euro to fund their creaky social welfare systems.

Still, the rise of the Euro internationally is another sign that the U.S. dollar is not what it used to be. There is increasing pressure on nations to buy and sell oil in euros, and anecdotal evidence suggests that drug dealers and money launderers now prefer euros to dollars. Historically, the underground cash economy has always sought the most stable and valuable paper currency to conduct business.

The World's Reserve Currency



I will respond to your original post in more detail later if so required but i suspect you will probably choose this time to leave the discussion as so many before you have. Feel free to hang around as the volume of information , to say nothing of the general levels of excitement, tends to increase as the 'discussion' goes into the second and third weeks.


Stellar



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Ah, love, but the apology wasn't to you, but to Ape. While I wrongfully scorned him, pointed him out, and for a blind, opinionated-reason, supported you, I've realized the error, and went to work asking foregiveness from him. And him, being a genlteman, did accept. In case you didn't read his post. Or mine, that followed.

As for my supposed ignorance of strength? Be careful, you're also implying the large volume of sources I listed of apparently being equally ignorant, and that's a large leap of faith for a man who's never personally undertaken studies, or has the responsibility report the economic status of the Untied States, as several of mine did.

Income going to the toptwenty percent is nothing new. As has been observed by many politicians and economic 'philosophers', if I might call them that -- Marx, etc. -- there is a certain class system to economics. The few who control the resource, or its production -- like goods -- receive the most income, while the masses of people whom work for them, earn less. This is not a measure of any country's economics, since it applies to most capitalist countries anyway -- even Communism, as the corrupt politicians generally take more than the people. Thank you for, again, pointing out a 'fact of life' so to speak.

And please, Stellar. Take a line from me, and do not take the majority of your evidence from a single-source. Because if I, so to speak, break the leg of that source, most of your evidence tumbles down.

For instance -- Ron Paul. A very good man, I think. One of the strongest representatives the Libertarian party has. However, he's markedly against _any_ expenditures by the United States government. He is noted as an extremist towards his 'thinning' of the government, and taking away its abilities to control, in policy and economics, internationally or domestically, American business.
This is a man, whom, because of the cost.
The cost, alone.
Was the only one to vote against giving a Medal of Honor, [Gold], to:
Tony Blair
Charles Schulz
Pope John Paul II
Rosa Parks
Mother Teresa

He supports the abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve, and is frequently the only dissenting vote among otherwise unanimous decisions.

You're taking a page from an economic and political radical.
Be careful, Stellar.

And, get to bed! It's 8:10, you should be tired, and not posting this nonsensical drivel, that shant get you anywhere.


ape

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
another prime example of how he pretends to 'overlook' posts that put him in a weak position.


ape

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
stellar we are still waiting for a response.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
stellar we are still waiting for a response.


And i am still waiting for the mods to actually start moderating! I will get to you eventually but nothing he said actually disputed the information. Please stop pretending that i have to respond within a day, or a week, as if this is some kind of competition or determination of what is true. Why do you not spend the time to actually investigate the issue so that i will not have to spend so much time correcting you?

Stellar



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
This is true.
I never did, nor intended to, dispute information which was on-topic. [Though, I think it's been a long-while by anyone standards since this topic was about the actual subject.]
On that note, there is little to dispute. There's been a disconcerting amount of misinformation, and blatant propaganda mixed in with actual facts that any concerted effort to deny the post would either leave myself in a rut, having seemingly not-answered half the facts, or resorted back to saying things are 'untrue' and 'lies' rather than an actual argument.
Until we move away from that form of Debate, no argument will be decisive, and secure.

On to Stellar: My effort was to disprove his offhand, adolescent scolding of the U.S., and blatant misinformation rather than work on the true-to-earth evidence at hand.
As of this point, he has no further obligation to uphold the misinformation, which I believe have proved exceedingly false, and to only move back on-topic.
And right now, he has no attacks on the literal evidence, to disprove.
You're both right, at the moment.

Let's begin discussion again.


ape

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

by stellar
I will respond to your original post in more detail later if so required but i suspect you will probably choose this time to leave the discussion as so many before you have. Feel free to hang around as the volume of information , to say nothing of the general levels of excitement, tends to increase as the 'discussion' goes into the second and third weeks



he posted all sorts of bogus information followed by this arrogant response to iblis and has yet to even reply to iblis's last post.

followed by this in response to me



And i am still waiting for the mods to actually start moderating! I will get to you eventually but nothing he said actually disputed the information. Please stop pretending that i have to respond within a day, or a week, as if this is some kind of competition or determination of what is true. Why do you not spend the time to actually investigate the issue so that i will not have to spend so much time correcting you



talk about ducking a debate when put in a weak position


actually it's the complete oppostite, I usually find myself correcting your bias opinion with your .ru sources and prison planet articles, you didnt even know about the CTR agreement. this has hardly gone 'off topic' because in every thread when people post misinformation about russias current status they need to be corrected which is exactly what we did to stellar. the topic was russias status in regards to nuclear war when they can't even operate a nuclear triad and anyone with knowledge knows this so this thread should of been scrapped a long time ago, it's hardly rellevant that it 'stays' on topic as it was never 'on topic' to begin with as it got out of control with misinformation and agenda.

i would love to see him intellectually respond to your post iblis as he has yet to do so while being active on the forums, it's a known fact stellar ducks posts that put him in tough position to justify his sources ( he cherry picks sources) and how they actually stand and who agrees with them and the legitimacy of the articles. He tells me to educate myself on the subject when it is him who is constantly corrected? this was an uneducated thread to begin with and got taken over by flamers, unfortunatly I got caught up in the mix.

has yet to respond to this



As for my supposed ignorance of strength? Be careful, you're also implying the large volume of sources I listed of apparently being equally ignorant, and that's a large leap of faith for a man who's never personally undertaken studies, or has the responsibility report the economic status of the Untied States, as several of mine did.


and this



Income going to the toptwenty percent is nothing new. As has been observed by many politicians and economic 'philosophers', if I might call them that -- Marx, etc. -- there is a certain class system to economics. The few who control the resource, or its production -- like goods -- receive the most income, while the >masses of people whom work for them, earn less. This is not a measure of any country's economics, since it applies to most capitalist countries anyway -- even Communism, as the corrupt politicians generally take more than the people. Thank you for, again, pointing out a 'fact of life' so to speak.


[edit on 17-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 17-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
I would act to apologize.
Having gone through several other posts, I've begun to realize that I was working with my opinion-of-the-moment, rather than a thought-out, historically-supported bias against Ape, and in support of Stellar.


So frequently engaging a certain person, because so little of what they claim are even remotely related to reality, is now some kind of bias? How many of my posts have you read to conclude something as startlingly strange?


As I've run through the recent and pasts post of his, and others, I've noticed the trends described in page ten are perfectly legitimate complaints of his actions and motive of debate against other members.


Such as trying to point out the vapid nature of their lies and propaganda in general? I have never , and will never , dignify my 'discussions' ( which is probably reaching) with the title 'debate' as that would be quite insulting to debates that actual involves two informed parties.


And even on my own post, which I thought considerably diplomatic,


Might seem diplomatic if you really believe all the things you seem to it's quite hard to even approach such when you believe so many things that are clearly not the truth. No one reaches such conclusions by being 'diplomatic' and the best word would probably be 'dogmatic'.


giving, especially him the benefit of the doubt, and unfairly attacking Ape --


Since we are dealing with quite obvious realities here there is never reason for giving anyone ' the benefit of the doubt' as that is just a admission of one's own general ignorance or dogmatic beliefs. I doubt any 'attack' ( which i suppose the discussion of the truth could be called in well enough twisted minds) on ape could easily be called 'unfair' but i have seen this type of thing before.



Who, while he may on occasion spout something in anger that I find distasteful, I've noticed only does it when first attacked in that manner


If you consider this to be the truth you have not actually read his posts ( not surprising as he makes a large number of rambling post's each day) or have been blinded by your bias. I do my best to 'play nice' considering his vapid slanderous ways but how long must i just put up with so many obvious lies?


- He did nothing more than belittle myself, and answer my questions -- Simple questions from someone outside the immediate debate, with open hostility and insults.


Once again you assume pointing out your ignorance as 'belittlement' when it's just the truth independent of your insecurities about your intellectual abilities; i really does not matter if your IQ is 220 or not when you claim things that is so easily shown to be false.


In the name of 'evidence', something he seems so fond of, yet as I've noted, contains questionable legitimacy the majority --


Please point out exactly what is wrong with at least a few of the individual sources when not taken in complete isolation as some have attempted to.


Not all, though the majority of the time, here's a bit of news about the U.S. Economy.


I post on such a wide variety of issues i am sure you have as much rope as anyone could request had their been some truth to it.


[On a non-link note, I enjoyed opening up the US Economics paper I received today, and finding that because the US Economy has swelled so spectacularly in the past year, especially in the area of corporate employment, certain 'safeguards' such as national interest rates were not to be enacted. {This was a 'downer', so to speak, as people had been expecting, and planning for such a measure.}]


It is simply recovering from many years of stagnation in most economic spheres as the material i will present later with illustrate quite clearly.


There is no doubt America has become a more apathetic and fatalist nation, and I do not find this a positive evolution of our social culture, though it'll pass, as all things do.
I think, like the 'Free Love' and 'Peace Movement's of the seventies, it is merely a fad, which will change in the coming years.


There may very well be a connection here and i will keep thinking...


[Note, because of such a fatalist attitude, many of the links, I imagine I will receive will discuss 'potential downfalls' and the lows, more than the highs, though I believe all will agree the economy is either strong, or has shown a respectable improvement in the past several years.]


Respectable by who's standard for a nation with such ability and relatively ( according to you) position in the world? How can one defend American prosperity that is based on such relatively well understood economic scams when it could have been built on the solid foundation that never really disappeared?


Stellar, the only way to negate the volume of evidence I am about to post is to simply say that because it's western, it's wrong.


It is never bad to present truth in great volumes but untruths will not be changed by presenting them en-mass; when i present most or all of my sources in support of a view i have formed i don't expect that mere volume 'proves' it but so that others may show up the flaws in the data so that i can reconsider or change my views. It's when people post large numbers of links without apparently having read it that one starts to wonder what their motives are.


Incorrect. Flawed. Invalid. As you have before.


Please show me where i have in past dismissed sources so easily never having ( then or in my posting past on ATS) pointed out my disagreement by method of other sourced material.


That simply does not work, and I hope I will receive something more structured, and legitimate than what you have displayed thus far.


The accusations might serve you well when engaging those who defend what they belief, independent of what they can support, but as you will see it matters little when engaging those who first do the research and then came to temporary conclusions.


--Using a wide variety of sources, so that by sheer numbers, Stellar can simply not discredit/disprove any one inparticular,


You must not be familiar with my posting habits in the past and maybe you should go back and investigate what i have so regularly done.
Large numbers of half/un-truths has never determined objective reality and it will not now.


and erego take them all out--


"Take them all out', yes. I'm not sure if i should laugh or cry.

[quopte]Further, I'm not going to put up much more than one or two things from Bush, as it's expected he should say good things of the economy.
[White House is not Bush, Stellar. Different groups, studies, and representations.]

Thanks.





news.yahoo.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.breitbart.com...


In response to the quite long list of sources i have chosen not to address them individually as that would not serve the truth very well. I will present my information in a number of categories dealing with specific economic issues thus making reading less cumbersome and more informative to those who have a true interest in understanding the current predicament the US 'economy' faces.

ECONOMIC GROWTH (GDP growth)


The current fiscal crisis is not due to irresponsible spending. Despite Federal spending cuts shifting the burden of social problems onto the states, most states spent prudently in the 1990s, restricting spending increases to education, health, and corrections. A growing school-age population and attempts to improve public schools led to increases in school spending. Health care expenditures rose sharply because the Federal government failed to provide for long-term care or prescription drug coverage for a growing elderly population. Finally, states built more prisons for more prisoners. Despite these increases, state spending rose less in the 1990s than in any other decade since World War II. Rather than spending recklessly, states anticipated future trouble by accumulating nearly $50 billion in reserve funds. After cushioning spending cuts over the last two years, these reserves are now almost exhausted.

Unfortunately, the same governors and legislators that kept a tight rein on spending used temporary revenue growth to finance permanent tax cuts. Tax cuts enacted in the 1990s have lowered current revenue by nearly 10%, equal to the coming fiscal year's anticipated deficit. In addition to their own tax cuts, states have lost revenue when federal cuts reduced revenue from state income, corporate and estate taxes linked to the federal tax code. The largest deficits are found in the states with the biggest tax cuts. By contrast, the few who avoided tax cuts have almost no deficit.

Required to balance their annual budgets, states have responded to declining revenues with spending cuts that have dramatically reduced services to their citizens. Medicaid cuts in 22 states will eliminate coverage for 1.7 million people, especially children and the working poor. Nearly 18 states have cut school spending leading to increased class size, teacher layoffs, and even a shortened school year in some states. Reductions in childcare allowances in 33 states put children at risk and force their parents to quit jobs to return to public assistance. Neglecting the growing terrorist threat, states have cut back on police and other first-responders. Nineteen states have reduced corrections spending, leading Kentucky and others to release some non- violent offenders early.

www.fguide.org...



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   

With the 1989 end of the Cold War, many proclaimed the "triumph of global capitalism," and by the late-1990s, the American people were enjoying what The Economist of London called the "longest-ever . . . economic expansion." Unemployment (about 4 percent) was the lowest in almost thirty years, wages were up for most American workers, and inflation was low; this was indeed an economic achievement. The performance of the stock market was extraordinary as the Dow Jones index broke through the 10,000 mark in the spring of 1999; the "wealth effect" of the high stock market, which encouraged Americans to spend freely, draw down their personal savings, and go deeply into debt, fueled rapid economic growth. With the rest of the world in recession or other dire economic straits, many Americans believed that the United States in the 1990s had fashioned a new type of capitalist economy and had escaped forever from ills historically associated with the capitalist system.

Enthusiastic supporters of the NAE even proclaimed that the American economy had transcended the "boom and bust" of the business cycle that has historically plagued capitalist economies. It seemed that the economic boom could continue forever. Most academic economists, on the other hand, were skeptical of such claims and warned that the American economy was experiencing a "speculative bubble." Like the Japanese bubble of the late 1980s and similar bubbles of the past, the American bubble would also necessarily burst one day.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, America's trade/payments deficits reached record highs. Since the early 1980s, in fact, Americans have borrowed approximately $5 trillion from the savers of the world, especially the Japanese, to finance their consumption and investment. In the mid-1980s, the United States went from its post-World War I position as the world's largest creditor nation to become its largest debtor. If one discounts American investment overseas, the net American international debt in the late 1990s stood at approximately $1 trillion; as a consequence, a sizable portion of the federal budget must be devoted to interest payments on this huge and increasing debt. Furthermore, throughout the 1990s, Americans had emptied their personal savings accounts to fuel "seven years of good times," leaving too little for the "seven years of bad times" that many and perhaps most economists believe loom ahead; the spending spree left 20 percent of American households net debtors. And the "good times" of the 1990s left many behind as the income of the least skilled lagged.1 Americans appeared to be unaware that one day the nation's huge accumulated debt will have to be repaid and serious adjustments in the American standard of living will be necessary.

press.princeton.edu...



In six years, the boomer vanguard
will start collecting Medicare. Our nation
has done nothing to prepare for this onslaught of
obligation. Instead, it has continued to focus on
a completely meaningless fiscal metric—“the”
federal deficit—censored and studiously ignored
long-term fiscal analyses that are scientifically
coherent, and dramatically expanded the benefit
levels being explicitly or implicitly promised to
the baby boomers.
Countries can and do go bankrupt. The United
States, with its $65.9 trillion fiscal gap, seems
clearly headed down that path. The country needs
to stop shooting itself in the foot. It needs to adopt
generational accounting as its standard method
of budgeting and fiscal analysis, and it needs to
adopt fundamental tax, Social Security, and
healthcare reforms that will redeem our children’s
future.

research.stlouisfed.org...



Interest payments on the debt amounted $352 Billion last year or nearly 12% of the entire budget. That’s more than the cost of the war in Iraq and roughly as much as the government will spend on Medicare in 2006. Eliminating the interest payment would go a long way to stabilizing the nations finances.

The growth of the 90s should not be considered a statistical aberration. Until the mid-1970s the United States posted productivity growth rates as high as in the 1990s. From the mid-1970s onwards a combination of oil shocks, inflation, and increasing debt slowed productivity growth. The 1990s were merely a recovery from that slow down. If we eliminate the debt burden we can expect those growth rates to return.

www.ncsu.edu...



Like many families who caught the housing boom, the Wilmores now have more debt than before they bought their home, but they also are wealthier. "I'm thankful for the low interest rate," said Wilmore, 42, a special-education teacher.

Greenspan and his Fed colleagues agree that part of the growth in household debt and the trade gap is the side effect of policies that helped steady the U.S. economy after the stock bubble burst in 2000. The Fed's low interest rates encouraged consumers to borrow and spend on houses, autos and other goods, spurring economic growth for several years when businesses were cutting jobs and reluctant to invest. And it was no surprise that consumers spent much of their borrowed money on imports, causing the trade deficit to swell. But in the view of central bank policymakers, the alternative would have been worse -- a longer and more painful downturn.

The result is a prosperity built on borrowing, say many economists, pointing to a string of recent records and firsts:

· U.S. household debt hit a record $11.4 trillion in last year's third quarter, which ended Sept. 30, after shooting up at the fastest rate since 1985, according to Fed data.

But household debt rose faster in recent years than wealth or disposable income, reaching an unprecedented 126.1 percent of after-tax income in the third quarter, double its 1980 level.

www.washingtonpost.com...



This recovery has been fueled to a very large extent by a housing bubble, just as the second half of
the nineties cycle was fueled by a stock bubble. Since 1997, average house prices have risen by more
than 50 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Historically, house prices have moved at approximately
the same pace as the overall rate of inflation.1 This unprecedented run-up has not been associated
with extraordinary population or income growth, both of which have been below their average pace
for the post-war years since 2000. It is also not associated with any new restrictions on supply, as
housing construction was at near record levels over the period 2003-2005. The run-up in house sale
prices was also not associated with any extraordinary increase in rents, which rose only slightly more
rapidly than the overall rate of inflation over this period. In short, the run-up in house prices cannot
be explained except as a speculative bubble.

This bubble fueled the economy directly through its impact on the housing sector and indirectly
through the impact that housing wealth had on consumption. Housing construction and sales
account for more than six percent of GDP. The run-up in prices has led to a near doubling of sales
of new and existing homes since the mid-nineties. It has also led to record nationwide vacancy rates
for both rental and owner occupied housing. In past downturns housing investment has fallen by
30-40 percent. The sector has never seen as much overbuilding as it has experienced in the current
cycle. Also, with the huge baby boom cohort now entering its retirement years, demand for housing
should be shrinking relative to the size of the population in the years ahead. Based on past patterns,
it is reasonable to expect a drop in output in the housing sector from its 2005 peaks of at least 40
percent. It should reach this bottom by the end of 2007 or early 2008 at the latest.
The wealth effect created by the housing bubble fueled an extraordinary surge in consumption over
the last five years, as savings actually turned negative. (The country’s demographics, with most of the
baby boom cohort still in its prime saving years, is heavily tilted toward saving.)

The run-up in prices created $5 trillion in excess housing wealth. Conventional estimates of the size of the housing wealth
effect imply that this wealth would have generated an additional $200-$300 billion of consumption
(1.6-2.3 percent of GDP).
It is plausible that the impact of this bubble wealth was actually considerably larger than the
conventional estimates imply. Historically, the saving rate in the United States had averaged close to
eight percent of disposable income. The savings rate began to decline sharply in the nineties, at least
partially in response to the stock bubble, although other factors likely played a role. However, even
assuming a baseline savings rate of just four percent, the current rate of -1 percent implies an
amount of excess consumption of almost $480 billion annually, given current income levels. This
higher figure is consistent with data showing that households were borrowing more than $600
billion annually against their home equity in 2005.

This home equity-fueled consumption will be sharply curtailed in the near future. In spite of the
record run-up in house prices, the ratio of homeowners’ equity to market value stood at a record
low in the second quarter of 2006. (This is especially striking since the baby boom cohort is now
ages 42-60 and would be expected to have accumulated considerable equity in their homes.)

www.cepr.net...


As seems quite evident there is no real growth in the US economy and it's entirely dependent on the USD as global reserve currency and the still current US capacity ( if clearly declining) to force most countries into dependency.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join