NationStates Jolt Archive

Alexander Hamilton was one of the greatest economic geniuses in the 18th century. He single-handedly saved the nascent US from hyper-inflation and the horrid specter of anarchy. Almost single-handedly, he manufactured an economically viable state out of a tangled mass of loosely connected territories. What was his secret? Well, it was the national debt. His far-sighted policies sought not to decrease the national debt but to increase it. He was a proponent of the national assumption of state debts and the repayment of debt at par. Why? Because he knew that national unity varied in direct proportion to national debt. Unfortunately, his legacy and economic principles were buried under the sands of time for centuries. Luckily, they have re-surfaced to aid the US in these harrowing times.

George Bush has resurrected the brilliance of Hamilton and has adapted it for a new age. He has transformed a relatively small national debt into a towering behemoth. He has poured money into Iraq and other projects. Under Bush, the national debt has ballooned to great heights. Some people deem this a mistake, but they are delusional. There are things that are much more important that national debt, and one of those is national coherence. He was learned the lesson of the past and has employed the techniques of formed economic masters to great effect. In his own words, he is a "uniter" and is attempting to unite the country through whichever means are at his disposal. He is much wiser than his critics give him credit for, and he has made an extremely smart political move. He should be applauded for his visionary foresight, not berated. Give the man a hand!

Have you ever tried stand up? I think you'd be good at it.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

Country leveraged up to the point of economic ruin
+ Highly unstable environment
National Unity

Give the man a hand!

Not even the steam, me oul flower....

Have you ever tried stand up? I think you'd be good at it.

I'm sorry, I must have missed your insinuation. What do you mean?

I'm sorry, I must have missed your insinuation. What do you mean?

You're funny. :)

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

Are you posting such messages because you cannot adequately debate the point? National unity is an admirable goal, or don't you think so?

You're funny. :)

Oh, oops. I re-read that sentence three times, and each time I saw "have you ever tried to stand up" and I had no clue what you meant. Well, I'll take that as a compliment, I guess, but I wasn't trying to be humorous. This is a serious mistake that many people make -- they consider the national debt a bad thing. However, if it were not for the national debt, there might not have been a US today.

Common its the federalist papers all over again...why not !

Except he gives Madison NO credit .

Plus the dude makes a valid point...go check the dow...new record...again.

He makes valid points if you don't agree it seems its only because he gave Bush credit and to you Bush is Satan and can do no good.

Thats very intellectually dishonest don't you think ?


BTW I am a Jeffersonian :p Hamilton is my enemy I challenge you to a duel .

Are you posting such messages because you cannot adequately debate the point? National unity is an admirable goal, or don't you think so?

I think it is a fairly pointless goal, but it is especially pointless when said nation is in the shitter because its currency is in the midst of a hyperinflation, and no one can sustain their own life.

Exactly how does debt unite us, again?

Plus the dude makes a valid point...go check the dow...new record...again.

Whoopty shit

Are you posting such messages because you cannot adequately debate the point? National unity is an admirable goal, or don't you think so?

I think he's referencing the inherent absurdity of saying either 1) that a man as smart as Alexander Hamilton would be dumb enough to think that national unity, national good, and national debt all work on a positive linear relationship, or 2) that George W. Bush is, if anyone's "protege" Alexander Hamilton's. Hamilton's aim was never to increase the debt; it was to solidify the foreign credit rating that the United States had, the better to secure future investment. George W. Bush's expansion of the debt in this case does precisely the opposite. Secondly, Hamilton was a monarchist and an aristocrat. While George W. Bush may act like a monarch and think like an aristocrat, he talks the talk of a Jeffersonian commoner. So saying he's anyone's "protege" is a bit of a stretch. In my mind, you can only call those people who can spell protege anyone's protege.

Give the man a hand!

http://www.costumesinc.com/Costumes/images/20053.jpg

George Bush has resurrected the brilliance of Hamilton and has adapted it for a new age.

it's true...ish

hamilton tried to pull a coup against the principles of the revolution too.

it's true...ish

hamilton tried to pull a coup against the principles of the revolution too.

Oh, now I know he's a troll.

Exactly how does debt unite us, again?

It all ties us down to the national government -- we must work as a country to resolve the problems beplaguing us and not as individual factions. Hamilton did what he did to stop New York from bickering with South Carolina -- Bush's plan was to stop Democrats from squabbling with Republicans. All Americans know that there are serious problems ahead of us, and we must reach a national compromise in order to surmount them. That, my friend, is unity.

It all ties us down to the national government -- we must work as a country to resolve the problems beplaguing us and not as individual factions. Hamilton did what he did to stop New York from bickering with South Carolina -- Bush's plan was to stop Democrats from squabbling with Republicans. All Americans know that there are serious problems ahead of us, and we must reach a national compromise in order to surmount them. That, my friend, is unity.

Holy shit! Your right! By the end of Bush's 2nd term all of america will stand united.













Behind the democrats.

Your style reminds me of Consience&Truth. I've been tricked into wasting words on a troll before, and have no intention of doing it again. The way your phrases are constructed make it very apparent that you are not who you pretend to be.

Exactly how does debt unite us, again?

Makes everyone pissed off at the government?

It's all Clinton's fault, you know. The debt, the Dow, all that.

lol

Behind the democrats.
ZING!

The way your phrases are constructed make it very apparent that you are not who you pretend to be.

Ah, you mean that the coherent and rational construction of my phrases does not lend itself to the possibility that I am not a ranting, raving mad-man and thus not a conservative? That is exactly the kind of arrogant, elitist, snobbery which is quite prevalent in liberals today. Please, debate the argument and not the man.

If you were going to appeal to a past president, why not FDR? He created the welfare state and championed the idea that a debt could be a good thing under the right circumstances. His national debt, in fact, got the country out of the Great depression and then helped fight and win WWII. Of course, he was smart so the comparison kind of dies there. He understood that a debt needs to be handled intelligently. Bush, on the other hand, doesn't know how to spell or pronounce "intelligently." National debt is kind of like having credit cards. They come in handy when you need them but if you go crazy at the mall with them they'll give you quite a hangover.

Give the man a hand!He's already got his face on a dollar bill, there's no need to celebrate an idiot that got himself shot in a duel anymore than that.

...Unfortunately, his legacy and economic principles were buried under the sands of time for centuries....

Hardly "buried in the sands for centuries", the only time when the United States was not in debt was under Andrew Jackson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#trivia

Hardly "buried in the sands for centuries", the only time when the United States was not in debt was under Andrew Jackson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#trivia

And under Bill Clinton. I do mean a budget surplus, there was certainly debt being paid off.

Hardly "buried in the sands for centuries", the only time when the United States was not in debt was under Andrew Jackson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#trivia

No, I was talking about his principle of intentionally expanding the national debt and then construing that increase in debt as a positive factor. Obvioiusly, it is necessary to have a national debt if you want to have sufficient economic growth, but I am not debating that.

No, I was talking about his principle of intentionally expanding the national debt and then construing that increase in debt as a positive factor. Obvioiusly, it is necessary to have a national debt if you want to have sufficient economic growth, but I am not debating that.

However, there does not seem to be much of a positive factor visible in the United States economy enough to make the debt "worth it".

My problem with you equating Bush to Hamilton is that I don't think Bush deliberately increased the debt for the reasons you state. He increased it to pay first for the Afghan War and then for the Iraqi War. I may be wrong, but hasn't Bush's party always been the one that trumpets "fiscal responsibility?" And by that, haven't they always meant "balance the budget?"

Are you posting such messages because you cannot adequately debate the point? National unity is an admirable goal, or don't you think so?
Of course it's an admirable goal. I firmly agree. 'Course, you fail to realize that it's uniting AGAINST him, and that it harms the country economically, but then, you don't really believe in this skewed look at economics, Lunatic Goofballs*.


*Yes, I still firmly believe MTAE is LG's puppet.

It all ties us down to the national government -- we must work as a country to resolve the problems beplaguing us and not as individual factions. Hamilton did what he did to stop New York from bickering with South Carolina -- Bush's plan was to stop Democrats from squabbling with Republicans. All Americans know that there are serious problems ahead of us, and we must reach a national compromise in order to surmount them. That, my friend, is unity.


Unity will only be possible if the American people in their wisdom bring back a true two party Congress and both the democrats and the Republicans are forced to work toghether by compromise and cooperation on issues instead of partinsanship and rule by decree .

Whats going on now is not only shamefull but is further dividing a country that should at this time in history ...for its own sake ..be truly united...and unity means including the democrats in positions of power. Even if they are a minority..its a huge one and it represents at least 48 percent of the population .

The fact that that 48 percent can be voted down by a republican controlled house and Senate and President only adds to the frustration of the minority .


Means do you at least see that point ?

At this time almost half the country is basically disenfrachised.

I see that as bad for UNITY.

Do you understand that point ?

I eagerly await your response.

The big differences between Hamilton and Bush is that Hamilton could count and Hamilton ran a successful business from the age of about 13. Bush only knows how to run businesses (and countries) into the ground.



Remember the 4-page rule, everyone.

Means do you at least see that point ?

Well, of course I see it. That doesn't mean I acknowledge it as valid, however. If you put a Democrat in a position of power, the first thing he'll do is formulate a plan for surrender to the terrorists (many of them are already advocating such plans). We cannot sacrifice safety for unity -- only money.

Of course it's an admirable goal. I firmly agree. 'Course, you fail to realize that it's uniting AGAINST him, and that it harms the country economically

As you yourself state, Bush is a martyr for a cause. He is willing to sacrifice his own political career upon the altar of national unity. He is a brave man; he does not care if the country hates him as long as it is united in its ire. His policies -- almost all of them, in fact -- have served to bind the country more closely together, whether they be economic or otherwise.

Well, of course I see it. That doesn't mean I acknowledge it as valid, however. If you put a Democrat in a position of power, the first thing he'll do is formulate a plan for surrender to the terrorists (many of them are already advocating such plans). We cannot sacrifice safety for unity -- only money.


Bob Casey believes that our nation must be committed to crushing the threat of terrorism. At the same time, our armed forces must have a clear mission and the resources to do the job. In the U.S. Senate, Bob Casey will ask the tough questions and demand truthful answers from this or any other administration that puts our troops in harm's way. He will also push for restoring relationships with our allies and re-establishing the international respect and goodwill that the current administration has largely squandered.

Defeating Terrorism
Our original military actions to destroy Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan were correct and effective steps to take. But Osama bin Laden is still on the loose.

As Pennsylvania's Senator, Bob Casey will push the White House and the Pentagon to redouble efforts to capture or kill bin Laden and crush the terrorist threat. Our troops at home and abroad should be honored for their dedicated work and their sacrifice. Bob Casey will make sure that same kind of relentless commitment to stamping out terrorism exists in Washington.

The Struggle in Iraq
The situation in Iraq has no easy solutions. Our troops are doing an outstanding job in battling insurgent forces. But the administration's misconceived and badly executed strategies have been turning Iraq into a worldwide haven for terrorists and endangering hope for a stable democracy to emerge.

We now know that the Bush administration's rationale for its rush to war was horribly flawed. The supposedly imminent threat posed by the Hussein regime's possession of weapons of mass destruction did not exist. And it has become evident that the administration did not have a real plan for keeping the peace after our military's rout of Hussein and his military forces. Thus our soldiers have suffered more loss of life and limb from terrorist guerilla warfare after the toppling of Hussein's dictatorial regime.

Too many Washington politicians continue to shirk their duty to press the hard and necessary questions about our involvement in Iraq. Bob Casey will push for a clear exit strategy and real plans for the Iraqi forces to take care of their own security, and development of a government structure that is widely seen as legitimate among Iraq's various ethnic groups. This year should be a year of transition for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security and governance.

Keeping Our Homeland Safe
The threat of another deadly terrorist attack hangs over our nation. But Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that this administration is still not ready to handle any kind of major disaster.

Bob Casey will help lead the effort in Washington to make sure that all the homeland security recommendations of the independent and bipartisan 9/11 Commission are effectively implemented. In its recent report detailing lack of progress on the homeland security front, the Commission awarded the Bush administration and Congress with five Fs and twelve Ds. The American people deserve straight As and nothing less.

Bob Casey knows that Pennsylvania's ports, railways, and nuclear plants still remain particularly vulnerable to attacks that could result in significant loss of life. Thus a primary focus for him as Pennsylvania's Senator will be to accelerate and enhance homeland security efforts pertaining to critical infrastructure throughout our state and nation.

Maintaining the Strongest and Best Military in the World
The United States military is the best in the world and we must continue to maintain that standard. That means our military must be equipped for the challenges of today - not of the Cold War. Our nation faces a different type of enemy today. Our forces must be configured to respond to terrorist threats and that of rogue nations.

Pennsylvania is one of the largest contributors of National Guard and reservist troops in the country. The Defense Department's planning and protections for all our troops in Iraq have been remarkably deficient. But the Department's failure to provide even minimally adequate body armor for National Guard and reservist troops has been especially shocking. Bob Casey will be committed to making sure that inexcusable treatment of our troops does not occur again.

Rebuilding Respect Around the World
Bob Casey believes that our position in the world must be one of leadership, not brinkmanship. We cannot win the war on terrorism alone, and we cannot possibly expect our troops to carry the entire burden of the free world. It is in our own self-interest and the world's interest for the United States to re-engage with our foreign allies. The Bush administration has burned up a lot of our goodwill around the world. Bob Casey knows that we must make a serious commitment to restoring it.

In particular, the United States needs alliances to stop nuclear proliferation. Rogue states and terrorism go hand in hand. Congress has under-funded the Nunn-Lugar program designed to control Cold War nuclear weapons. It is critical to the safety of the United States and the rest of the world that nuclear weapons do not fall into terrorist hands.

The United States should use every tool it has - diplomatic, economic, political, and even leaving all military options on the table - to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. For too long, the Bush administration failed to exhibit a serious hard-line attitude against North Korea's nuclear program. We cannot afford to repeat such mistakes anywhere else in the world.

The U.S.-Israel Partnership
The United States and Israel share a deep, unshakable bond based on common values and mutual interests.

The United States must use its power and resources to protect Israel from terrorist threats, pressure Arab states to halt any support or tolerance for terrorism, provide Israel with sufficient military and economic aid, and remain committed to Israel's quest for peace with security.

As a United States Senator, Bob Casey will insist on a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and diplomatic support for peace in the Middle East based upon Israel's security needs


Do you ever tire of being so wrong ?

Come on I expect a much better effort from you .

Do you ever tire of being so wrong ?


How does that quote disprove any of my points? That particular Democrat is fine with foreign-funded terrorists usurping control of Iraq and continuing to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi people. He feels no duty to protect the Iraqis or to combat terrorism in Iraq before it comes to the US. He is, I am afraid, typical.

How does that quote disprove any of my points? That particular Democrat is fine with foreign-funded terrorists usurping control of Iraq and continuing to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi people. He feels no duty to protect the Iraqis or to combat terrorism in Iraq before it comes to the US. He is, I am afraid, typical.

Are you Joking ? He just like the current President and the generals all see we need to do something DIFFERENT to accomplish our goals in Iraq..HE is for staying and getting the job done...only he doesn't feel the CURRENT administration is doing it right .

GUESS what I agree with him . They have made some huge errors . And have only just recently started taking about changing tactics etc....

have you missed that. This guys been saying the same thing for two years.


Bob Casey will push for a clear exit strategy and real plans for the Iraqi forces to take care of their own security, and development of a government structure that is widely seen as legitimate among Iraq's various ethnic groups. This year should be a year of transition for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security and governance.



Good for him if he can pull it off but I doubt it but he wants to show us a plan...see a goal ? Like instead of "we will keep doing stuff until we finish is getting old "

AND I SUPPORT THE FRIGGING WAR.

But sorry dude ....how long and how ? I want to know . How are you going to do it ? Whats your plan ?

I waited long enough. I want results. I want them soon . I want to know I am winning . And how and why .


He wants to do it by making the Iraqis take controll....

Last I looked that was the Bush plan .

So when will they get around to doing it ?


In fact your a smart guy.


Ask yourself why his plan was not implemented Right after the invasion...so we would all be in Afghanistan and someplace else we are needed.


Like Bush himself said. " I have patience but not unlimited patience"

And if the quarterback isn't getting it done it is time to bench his ass .

I waited long enough. I want results. I want them soon . I want to know I am winning .

And what if we're not winning? Should we just leave and allow Iraq to fall into an interminable civil war, become a haven for terrorists, and turn into a horrendous bloodbath? Should we allow thousands upon thousands of Iraqis to die simply because we don't have the resolution to stick it out? That's exactly what the terrorists want us to do; they want us to withdraw so they can manipulate Iraq until it conforms to their Islamo-fascist will. Somewhere down the road, we'll pay for our mistake of leaving Iraq before the job is done with American blood. I can only hope that it won't be your blood that is spilled and that you'll realize your error.

Did this thread just compare one of my personal heroes with Bush? I’m insulted.

And what if we're not winning? Should we just leave and allow Iraq to fall into an interminable civil war, become a haven for terrorists, and turn into a horrendous bloodbath? Should we allow thousands upon thousands of Iraqis to die simply because we don't have the resolution to stick it out? That's exactly what the terrorists want us to do; they want us to withdraw so they can manipulate Iraq until it conforms to their Islamo-fascist will. Somewhere down the road, we'll pay for our mistake of leaving Iraq before the job is done with American blood. I can only hope that it won't be your blood that is spilled and that you'll realize your error.

We better win for all our sakes and we will win . The stakes are too high .

You never will hear me say or have me support , someone who wants to leave...so why bring it up in a response to my post ?

And what if we're not winning? Should we just leave and allow Iraq to fall into an interminable civil war, become a haven for terrorists, and turn into a horrendous bloodbath? Should we allow thousands upon thousands of Iraqis to die simply because we don't have the resolution to stick it out? That's exactly what the terrorists want us to do; they want us to withdraw so they can manipulate Iraq until it conforms to their Islamo-fascist will. Somewhere down the road, we'll pay for our mistake of leaving Iraq before the job is done with American blood. I can only hope that it won't be your blood that is spilled and that you'll realize your error.

Coward. You're pissing yourself over a bunch of guys in caves with no infrastructure or real army because they walked through a gaping but easily closable hole in our airport security. You're acting like an invasion is imminent, and using fear to try to turn the US into a totalitarian state, and the shitty thing is that your side has succeeded so far. You're pathetic and disgusting, and so are those who believe you.

And Ultraextreme Sanity, that goes for you too.

......

what sort of craziness is this?

Coward. You're pissing yourself over a bunch of guys in caves with no infrastructure or real army because they walked through a gaping but easily closable hole in our airport security. You're acting like an invasion is imminent, and using fear to try to turn the US into a totalitarian state, and the shitty thing is that your side has succeeded so far. You're pathetic and disgusting, and so are those who believe you.

And Ultraextreme Sanity, that goes for you too.


Ummm Nazz your way over the top .

have you seen the video of marines fighting Al Queda in iraq ?

Its on U tube ...CNN made it..

And these people could just as easily walk into a city through any number of gaping holes in our borders or other security and pop a Nuke or a chemical weapon in a city .

Or they could just strap bombs on themselves and take a few one way train rides...

Your delusional if you think we are not fighting a war against terror and its the same attitude that you have now that led to 9/11...when the only people who thought there was a war against the US were the terrorist..:rolleyes:

What more must they do to motivate you ? How many bodies or buildings will it take ? How many are you willing to see die before you admit we are at war with terrorist and that they have a global organization ?

Your in bad denial .

Coward. You're pissing yourself over a bunch of guys in caves with no infrastructure or real army because they walked through a gaping but easily closable hole in our airport security. You're acting like an invasion is imminent, and using fear to try to turn the US into a totalitarian state, and the shitty thing is that your side has succeeded so far. You're pathetic and disgusting, and so are those who believe you.

And Ultraextreme Sanity, that goes for you too.

The funniest part is that this is exactly the kind of thinking that Hamilton would have detested. He was a brilliant man but a vicious bitch of a snob who loathed most of humanity and especially "the mob," by which he seemed to mean anyone other than himself. He was constantly writing letters to people venting and bitching about all the morons and imbeciles he had to deal with -- and he was referring to his fellow founders. He thought people were too stupid to govern themselves. "National unity"? Please. Hamilton would have vomited at the thought of being united with the mob and the lumpen and all those other smelly, stupid people who take fright at every shadow and couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a war effort.

Hamilton. A man after my own heart.

Not at all like Bush. That fakey-hokey accent of Bush's? Hamilton would have spit on him while drunk.

EDIT: Page 4! Whee! We're done here. Remember the rule.

Ummm Nazz your way over the top .

have you seen the video of marines fighting Al Queda in iraq ?

Its on U tube ...CNN made it..

And these people could just as easily walk into a city through any number of gaping holes in our borders or other security and pop a Nuke or a chemical weapon in a city .

Or they could just strap bombs on themselves and take a few one way train rides...Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

You're scared shitless of a threat that doesn't exist in any real terms, and what's more important, a threat that can be far more easily defended against by hardening our borders instead of fighting in a country on the other side of the earth. And let's not forget that our own military says a good 95% of the violence in Iraq is sectarian, not al Qaeda.

No, you've just bought into the administration's line that these people are out to kill us here. They're lying. The insurgents are fighting for control of Iraq, and the few al Qaeda that are there are making use of the violence to hone their skills. But instead of defending against that, tightening our borders and ports and airports, we're dicking away our resources in Iraq. And suckers like you just fall for it, as though al Qaeda is putting together an army to come and get us. Again--you're pathetic.

Your delusional if you think we are not fighting a war against terror and its the same attitude that you have now that led to 9/11...when the only people who thought there was a war against the US were the terrorist..:rolleyes:

What more must they do to motivate you ? How many bodies or buildings will it take ? How many are you willing to see die before you admit we are at war with terrorist and that they have a global organization ?

Your in bad denial .
A war on terror again. :rolleyes:
You can't fight a war on a tactic. You might as well fight a war on pincer movements and bombing campaigns. But what you can do is protect your borders and use law enforcement to go after terrorists before they strike. Sort of like we didn't do before 9/11 when the Bush administration got all sorts of warnings from CIA and other intel groups that an attack was coming and they did jack shit. Your people failed in that important task, and yet you continue to support them. You know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. That's you in this support for this so-called war.

You can't fight a war on a tactic. You might as well fight a war on pincer movements and bombing campaigns. But what you can do is protect your borders and use law enforcement to go after terrorists before they strike. Sort of like we didn't do before 9/11 when the Bush administration got all sorts of warnings from CIA and other intel groups that an attack was coming and they did jack shit. Your people failed in that important task, and yet you continue to support them. You know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. That's you in this support for this so-called war.

I actually agree with mostly every thing you said here.

Except by war or terror they mean war or terrorist and the organizations and states that support them and thee culture and attitudes that spawn them .
So just becuse your a little pissy about the sound bite fast food method they used to describe the war doesn't make it any less valid.
And you can defeat a tactic by making the use of the tactic so painfull and counter productive as to obsolete it or hold it in check...otherwise we would be lobbing nuclear weapons willy nilly all over the globe .

My other argument is that you say YOUR PEOPLE ...thats a fucked up stupid way of describing any American and much of the reason the country is in hate mode. There is no YOUR PEOPLE only the PEOPLE . No matter what party or organization you belong to or your personal beliefs you are an American.

Maybe thats your problem . You have set yourself apart from all others and decided you are an elite life form that knows better than all the OTHERS ..all those people who are not you or part of your support group . I would say that that it a decidely unamerican way of thinking.

I accept your right to be wrong or hold a different opinion from me . Its called living in a Democracy.

You should try it . BTW I guess the 9/11 report was a load of bullshit ...or do you go along with it at all ?:rolleyes:

All hail the devil Bush ..Bush is Satan ..all hail Satan ..its all his fault.


Nazz you make tons of good points then you kill them by going over the top with shit...I dont get it .

You know kids, I said "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS" for a reason. MTAE is a troll, he has in his brief history posted all of one thread that wasn't insulting or inflammatory. He's like UN Abassadorship, he's a bloody troll. The more you respond the more you stroke his ego.

He supports only the most untenable positions, there's really no point in even arguing them with him because he's a troll.

You know kids, I said "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS" for a reason. MTAE is a troll, he has in his brief history posted all of one thread that wasn't insulting or inflammatory. He's like UN Abassadorship, he's a bloody troll. The more you respond the more you stroke his ego.

He supports only the most untenable positions, there's really no point in even arguing them with him because he's a troll.

Quite right, that's why someone suggested a "no more than 4 pages" rule for MTAE's threads. And this one isn't all that great.

You know kids, I said "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS" for a reason. MTAE is a troll, he has in his brief history posted all of one thread that wasn't insulting or inflammatory. He's like UN Abassadorship, he's a bloody troll. The more you respond the more you stroke his ego.

He supports only the most untenable positions, there's really no point in even arguing them with him because he's a troll.

On this one, though, I don't think he's actually trolling. It's an "F-, go home and try again" job. On the other hand, for sheer comedy value, his Foley/Parks thread was a classic.

Debt is good, as it forces a nation to work as one to overcome that debt? Right? What if the nation can't work as one, in which case it can't pay off the debt and then......actually I don't know what would happen if a country failed to pay off it's national debt. Would the bank repossess the country? :confused:

Debt is good, as it forces a nation to work as one to overcome that debt? Right? What if the nation can't work as one, in which case it can't pay off the debt and then......actually I don't know what would happen if a country failed to pay off it's national debt. Would the bank repossess the country? :confused:

You have a currency crisis, and the IMF bankrupts you.

And under Bill Clinton. I do mean a budget surplus, there was certainly debt being paid off.
Actually--no. What happened was the same sort of shenanigans that got Enron and WorldCom in trouble, only since it's the federal government there isn't thing-one that can be done about it. Social Security "income" was used to cover the shortfall, and certain things were moved off-budget. That's simply bad bookkeeping, and would land an accountant in jail now. But government flunkies are immune to prosecution of those laws, in essence.

Actually--no. What happened was the same sort of shenanigans that got Enron and WorldCom in trouble, only since it's the federal government there isn't thing-one that can be done about it. Social Security "income" was used to cover the shortfall, and certain things were moved off-budget. That's simply bad bookkeeping, and would land an accountant in jail now. But government flunkies are immune to prosecution of those laws, in essence.
Let's be fair across the board--we're still doing the same accounting now, and we're running record deficits, so Clinton is still ahead on that score.

Alexander Hamilton was one of the greatest economic geniuses in the 18th century. He single-handedly saved the nascent US from hyper-inflation and the horrid specter of anarchy. Almost single-handedly, he manufactured an economically viable state out of a tangled mass of loosely connected territories. What was his secret? Well, it was the national debt. His far-sighted policies sought not to decrease the national debt but to increase it. He was a proponent of the national assumption of state debts and the repayment of debt at par. Why? Because he knew that national unity varied in direct proportion to national debt. Unfortunately, his legacy and economic principles were buried under the sands of time for centuries. Luckily, they have re-surfaced to aid the US in these harrowing times.

George Bush has resurrected the brilliance of Hamilton and has adapted it for a new age. He has transformed a relatively small national debt into a towering behemoth. He has poured money into Iraq and other projects. Under Bush, the national debt has ballooned to great heights. Some people deem this a mistake, but they are delusional. There are things that are much more important that national debt, and one of those is national coherence. He was learned the lesson of the past and has employed the techniques of formed economic masters to great effect. In his own words, he is a "uniter" and is attempting to unite the country through whichever means are at his disposal. He is much wiser than his critics give him credit for, and he has made an extremely smart political move. He should be applauded for his visionary foresight, not berated. Give the man a hand!

ROFLMAO!!!!

I'm sorry, were you attempting to be serious?

You know kids, I said "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS" for a reason. MTAE is a troll, he has in his brief history posted all of one thread that wasn't insulting or inflammatory. He's like UN Abassadorship, he's a bloody troll. The more you respond the more you stroke his ego.

He supports only the most untenable positions, there's really no point in even arguing them with him because he's a troll.

Actually, what I was told a short while ago was that MTEA and UN Abassadorship are the same person. Which makes a good deal of sense, as they two seem to do the exact same thing.

However, back to the original point, not only was Hamilton very different than Bush, I doubt Bush has ever even heard of Hamilton, or knows what he did.

Actually, what I was told a short while ago was that MTEA and UN Abassadorship are the same person. Which makes a good deal of sense, as they two seem to do the exact same thing.

However, back to the original point, not only was Hamilton very different than Bush, I doubt Bush has ever even heard of Hamilton, or knows what he did.

He invented the ten-dollar bill, right? Heh.

Hardly "buried in the sands for centuries", the only time when the United States was not in debt was under Andrew Jackson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#trivia

I thought it spiked under Harrison with the tariff and then he spent it on Civil War pensions.

And I'm pretty sure we were fine both times we had a surplus.

ROFLMAO!!!!

I'm sorry, were you attempting to be serious?

No, he isn't.

This has been another installment of short answers to simple questions.

No, he isn't.

This has been another installment of short answers to simple questions.

:D

Yes, MTAE, this one's about run it's course. Can we have another, please?

ROFLMAO!!!!

I'm sorry, were you attempting to be serious?

Of course I was being serious. Although some people may not realize the genius of Bush, the same was true for most brilliant thinkers in the past. Their greatness was, unfortunately, only recognized posthumously. Or are you one of those liberals who thinks the national debt is a bad thing?

Common its the federalist papers all over again...why not !

Except he gives Madison NO credit .

Plus the dude makes a valid point...go check the dow...new record...again.

He makes valid points if you don't agree it seems its only because he gave Bush credit and to you Bush is Satan and can do no good.

Thats very intellectually dishonest don't you think ?


BTW I am a Jeffersonian :p Hamilton is my enemy I challenge you to a duel .


Aaron Burr did the deed for you. ;)

ROFLMAO!!!!

I'm sorry, were you attempting to be serious?


I study history ....... I took him seriosly... Then I looked back and reviewed stuff saw an argument that has raged for years among people that have no influence in todays reality and decided it may be fun to go with for a few post but ....meh ...tooo much relevant shit is going on and ..revision ...unless its to learn a Lesson ? Is not worth the effort .

Let's be fair across the board--we're still doing the same accounting now, and we're running record deficits, so Clinton is still ahead on that score.
No, since the President really has little power in the economy. Two words, though: Green. Span.

Looks like I have to remind you folks yet again

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!!!

I wonder what they'll be teaching him at prep school next week. It looks to me that someone has a crush on a right-wing teacher and they're parrotting whatever they're told.