When did I say the Soviet Union went bankrupt in 2001?

 

I like debates where facts and logic matter. You are hardly worth my effort, but you are good for a few of these: :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

Two reasons they went bust..

Trying to keep up with Reagan's Star Wars Program and Afghanistan...

But we (CIA Hidden War) backed the Afghans....

Thanks to this Man...Charlie Wilson



Wilson is best known for leading Congress into supporting Operation Cyclone, the largest-ever Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert operation which, under the Reagan administration, supplied military equipment including anti-aircraft weapons such as Stinger antiaircraft missiles and paramilitary officers from their Special Activities Divisionto the Afghan Mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. His behind-the-scenes campaign was the subject of the non-fiction book Charlie Wilson's War by George Crile and a subsequent film adaptationstarring Tom Hanks as Wilson.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson_(Texas_politician)

 

You like to cherry pick your 'facts',,as you are unlikely to understand anything other than what you want to believe,, and you believe in big government.

 

That is where the expenditures were but the fact that the commie economy couldn't handle it is what did them in.

 

9/11 was in 2001, or are you just saying that Bin Laden was referring back to 1991?

 

Bin Laden was saying that the Soviet Union had ruined itself in Afghanistan, and that he had drawn the United States into Afghanistan and Iraq for a similar fate.

 

Yeah,, but Bin Ladin for got to mention that the U.S. assisted Afghanistan in defeating the Soviet union.

 

Hence, Capitalism defeated Communism.

 

Looky there,,you really are not just a pretty face..

 

Aww what's wrong with FDR quotes?

Ok Back on topic.

Which handouts do you mean the corporate welfare handouts or the actual welfare that benefits those people who have been screwed over by corporations?
You know the offshoring of jobs, layoffs of thousands . Or maybe they were replaced well short of social security age and replaced by 3 college grads for less pay.
Wages have been flat in this country for workers for going on over 20 years because the greedy have determined that they are more valuable than those who do the actual work. The rich in this country are the true leaches not the ones at the bottom of the ladder.

Or are you talking about the military industrial complex welfare handouts? You know those inflated cost plus profit no bid contracts. (also see above on corporations).

Or are you talking about the mythical welfare queen?

If your talking about cutting social programs that actually feed people because there are no jobs for them then the real question is when do you want the food riots to start?
Every dollar you give them in aids get pumped right back into the economy because they truthfully get so little that even reeducating themselves is next to impossible. It quite truly is spent on food and shelter and not much else. So all that aid eventually winds up in a rich corporations bank account (walmart). Who then pay next to no taxes on billions of profit because of sweet tax deals and deductions.

As per levying more taxes. The BUSH tax cuts were NOT MEANT TO BE PERMANENT. It is this one thing that more than anything else has led to the destructive deficits we now have. You have the Republicans to thank for that one too.

Those who are most capable of paying more should be paying more. Hell the tax rate in the 50's and 60's was sky high yet the economy was booming. The rich were falling all over themselves to start new business's. Now with the help of the Government they have bought the rich have created for themselves an ecosphere where they don't have to work at creating a true business. They just have to create shell corporations to make investments into corporations that suck the life out of JQP. Then demanding that corporations OFFSHORE the jobs so they can make even more. Consumers have to have money to buy the corporate products and with wages flat and less jobs the rich and large corporations who offshore jobs have all but decided to eventually cut their own throats. Overriding unquenchable greed is killing this country and it is being done with the complicity of the Republicans and to a lesser extent the Democratic party members.


If your complaining about the increase in the size of government I suggest you ask the people who have done it the most. Republicans.

 

True but the Soviet economy was't doing well before this point. This pushed it over the edge.

 

LOL...I just had to put a plug in for a wild ass parting congressman from Texas....:excited:

RIP...Charlie

 

lol Nothing wrong with FDR quotes, he's my hero(sarcastic). :excited:

I agree with you that outsourcing the way that it was done screwed many Americans in the United States and is a big reason why a lot of the problems exist. I think they just made black and white comparisons and jumped.

They said here we're paying an engineer $80K per year and over there we can get the professional labor for $20K. They didn't think about the language barriers and how it would result in a lot project rework, pissed off customers who couldn't understand customer support people from abroad, and the cost of the increased management overhead, ...

The savings related to outsourcing was non-existant or very small at best. The United States suffered a lot though.

I don't deny that people need help but it shouldn't become a way of life. I think the United States needs to somehow start producing goods at home again and putting people back to work.

I don't think tax and spend is the answer (Democrats). I don't think borrow and spend (Republicans) is the answer either. Or, the spend should be temporary and capped with a ceiling that doesn't get raised repeatedly.

 

lol Why, of course. Fellow Texan, I see. :excited:

 

The fall of the Soviet Union was seen in the United States as the failure of socialism. The fall of the United States, which I consider to be possible, will be seen internationally as the failure of capitalism.

The Scandinavian social democracies have responded better to the Great Recession than the United States. So have the economies of Canada and Australia. Communist China buys Americas national debt, while out producing the U.S. economically.

 

Oh my disillusioned child, the efficiency of the major Scandinavian economies is a myth. The Swedish and Finnish welfare states have been going through a long period of decline. In the early 1990s they were virtually bankrupt. Between 1990 and 1995 unemployment increased five-fold. The Scandinavian countries have not been able to recover.

In 1970, Sweden’s level of prosperity was one quarter above Belgium’s. By 2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity index, two places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd most prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and the United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From 1989 to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th to 15th place.

Together with Italy, these three Scandinavian countries are the worst performing economies in the entire European Union. Rather than taking them as an example, Europe’s politicians should shun the Scandinavian recipes, and so should you.

That's correct,, it is called ''STATE CAPITALISM'',,I would not deny that China has been the economic superstar of recent years. Thanks to its relentless double-digit annual growth, it has become the world's second-largest economy and in many ways the most dynamic.

BUT,,is it actually true,,of course not,,China's vigor owes much to what has been happening from the bottom up as well as from the top down, along with private entrepreneurs..


Yes that is right,,private entrepreneurs..These entrepreneurs often operate outside not only the powerful state-controlled companies, but outside the country's laws. As a result, their significance cannot be well tracked by the state-generated statistics that serve as a flawed window into China's economy.

In fact China has surged forward mainly where the state has stood back. “Capitalism with Chinese characteristics” works because of the capitalism, not the characteristics.