You are obsessed with Eroschillies

To keep with the theme here, did you know that there's a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity? Think about it...

WRONG!

The answer is neither. Location matters not.

I always loved that bit on SNL when they spoofed the MG show

I was not aware of that.
Wow, even at my age, I still learn something new every day.

I just got Cade Skywalker BH.


I think they need to make a Fett with female betrayal because of his pimpness.


Finally are they ever going to make a good Nogri, he did outwit Thrawn and stab him.

his name was kruhk or something like that, and yeah, he'd be sweet.
he have

cloaked, pioson +10/20, twin or at least double, cunning+20/opro+20,
(probably opro) betrayal maybe, thrawns bodyguard, quick reactions.
and maybe some cool new paralyzing special ability.

HP-70, DF-19, ATT-11, DMG-10

something like that. i know this is off topic,
but this should almost be under customs.

There is no spoon, or pie.

THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD!!!

Actually, the economic scene was better than you described, it had its setbacks, but was generally rebounding from the collapse of the internet stocks and the DOW hit a high of 14,000. That was amazing. Considering the circumstances, Bush did an extremely good job and the economy was very good, the average annual growth was about 2.2%. Unfortunately, it was inevitable that these things would catch up with us. The economic growth in the 90s was mainly because of Contract with America (set up by House Republicans), Reagan policies still in effect, and the successes of internet businesses. The 90s were also lucky enough to not have a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or a major war. The federal surplus was nonexistent. It was completely based upon projected gains from the internet businesses. They collapsed, and thus there was no surplus. Bush's spending habits were pretty much the only thing I did not like about him. I am not, however, convinced the overspending was all his fault. You must remember that a liberal congress was in power for much of his presidency.



The CRA forced banks to make loans to people who would normally be refused as a bad credit risk. The FHA then made it so the bank could not give them different interest rates based upon their income level. A minimum wage worker asking for 750k would have to be accepted and given the same rates as a Millionare asking for the same amount. The government did force banks to do crazy things, do you think it is a coincidence that the government banks were hit the hardest? Some banks were able to work around the interest rate requirements, but few could avoid giving loans to the undeserved.



Nope. Reagan did win the Cold War. The Soviet Union was already on its decline, but Reagan sped it up. Would you also say that Hitler won the European Theater for the allies because of his horrible decisions from 1943 on? Would you say the IJN won the Pacific Theater for the allies by failing to protect their supply lines? Reagan was the one that pushed the Soviets over the edge by forcing them to either match him in defensive systems, or cede. They bankrupted themselves in the process of competing with SDI. Gorbechev did have a role in ending the Soviet Union, but Reagan sealed the deal. The Soviets may have comlpetely collapsed later without Reagan's interference, but that is a moot point. In reality, Reagan won. About Carter, reducing military spending in the middle of a war is never a good idea. Arms treaties are pretty much a joke. Both sides may agree, but they never intend to follow it. If they do, they are foolish. Just look at the Treaty of Versailles or the Washington Naval Treaty. Those were not ever going to be honored and were not honored, so they were little more than useless gestures. You also seem to forget the result of Carter's maltreatment of the defense budget. Equipment was outdated, morale was horrible, and re-enlistment was at an all-time low. It took a lot of work for Reagan to fix the mess Carter turned the military into. Finally, Reaganomics is still the best economic policy to date. You cannot argue with a 3.4% annual GDP growth rate. That is only slightly lower than the post-war growth of 3.6%. It also resulted in a job increase rate almost equal to the population growth rate. It consists of four simple rules:

1. reduce the growth of government spending
2. reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. reduce government regulation of the economy
4. control the money supply to reduce inflation



Are you kidding me? If you are below a certain income level, you qualify for Government Assisted Housing. This includes people on welfare. That plan continued and resulted in offshoots including CRA and FHA aimed at forcing banks to give loans for other low income people so they could buy their own houses instead of the government providing it for them. So yes, the government does provide housing for the poor and those on welfare. And no, social security did not save our country, World War II saved our country from the Great Depression. Money was already practically worthless during the Great Depression, so the amount of money that people had did not matter. Towns ran more on an exchange of services. A lawyer would represent a farmer in court, and the farmer would pay the lawyer with some food. That was how it worked, people took care of each other. This included the elderly and disabled in these communities. People honored their families back then, no matter how bad things got. The government programs during that time did provide needed jobs, food, and care, but unfortunately, just like communism, it stifles all economic growth. If things had continued without World War II, the United States would not exist for that reason. And do not even get me started on FDR...



Nowadays, fascism is a bit of an ambiguous term. Many people like to call it right-wing extremism, yet no fascist government was particularly right-wing. I like to think of fascism more as a belief that people owe everything to the government, but does not encourage class warfare like communism does. I say Obama has a pinch of fascism because he is obviously socialist, but not quite communist. I do not think he believes in true equality like a true communist (which does not exist and never will). Instead, he uses the poor as a stepping stone to power, much like a fascist. He still believes in many social programs, though. That makes him a socialist. I hope that clarifies my view of Obama. If you want a more in depth description of Obama that I do not feel like explaining, read this.

@defender The U.S. actually had a few terrorist attacks on US soil during the 90s. Of course they have been overshadowed by the enormity of 9-11. The first attack on the twin towers by bin laden in the early 90s, the domestic terror attack on oklahoma city, and the US embassy bombings that occured. We were also involved in several military actions, both in Europe and Africa to try to secure peace. We also made several anti-terrorist strikes against individuals like kadafi (sp?).

There was a federal surplus, largely drawn from the .com boom. There were projected gains as well, which is probably why pres Bush felt there was room to return some of the surplus to the taxpayers as he felt it was their money anyways. I would not blame a liberal congress for the runaway spending under the bush administration, and I wouldn't blame him per se either as it largely came from the war effort. One being a poorly planned and executed war to topple the taliban and the other an unnecessary war that was equally poorly done.

Banks can and have refused loans based on whether or not they believed individuals could pay them. And the size of the loan is also decided by the banks. And why are those who have less money less deserving? Less able to buy nice houses maybe, but I wouldn't say less deserving.

Arms treaties should be honored. If we give our word to do something, we should do it. If the USSR hadn't been as weak as it was and ready to collapse, Reagan's arms building could have left the world in ashes. The Cold War wasn't a real war, so reducing military spending is not a bad idea. Why pay tremendously for a service we were not using at the time? Defense is good and key, but wasteful spending on weaponry when we said we wouldn't is not. If Reagan had just update and revamped the military instead of aiming to increase it and make more nukes, it would have been bett IMO.

And Reaganomics... I dislike it, all my econ proffs dislike it. The GDP growth rate is good, but you know who also has good GDP growth? China. For the last 30 years they maintained a constant GDP growth of about 8% each year. That's ridiculously good, but success in GDP growth isn't always for the best as a nation. China considers themselves to be a socialist market economy with a strong communist goverment. They are doing quite well economically for a stifling economic system life communism. Proving where the USSR went wrong.

We have neigh reached the classical region of aggragate supply, real GDP doesn't increase much there. But our increasing income inequality does not make Reaganomics look good. The gap between the rich and poor has been increasing since around 2004, and this is noted by the rising Gini Coeffecient from about .45 to about .47. Do we need to make the US richer with increasing GDP or do we need to increase our standard of living better for everyone, not just the rich? Questions left to those who get elected to great power and responsibility.

Social Security saved us from collapsing before we got to WWII. And the way WWII saved us was by providing jobs and money to everyone in the US. The military-industrial complex of the goverment became one giant social program that saved this nation. I have nothing but respect for how FDR saved us all from speaking German, even if I disagree with many of the things he did and programs he started.

And I wouldn't say communism, socialism, or fascism are ambigous terms nowadays. Not when most of the population can actively recall McCarthyism. They have specific meanings. I would not say fascism is right-wing extremism, especially since it's a form of socialism (that being leftist in this country).