Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Worst President Ever?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
Cedric View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Unit

Joined: 24 November 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4240
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cedric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 9:27pm
Just because 4e+ nations get the same intel doesn't mean that it's the truth.

Back to Top
.Ryan View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Neither cool nor annoying

Joined: 25 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4488
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote .Ryan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 10:16pm
The worst part about Iraq, besides the lives ruined and lost, is that fact that it completely ruined our credibilty around the world. Does anyone remember how much support and political capital we had with most of the world right after 9/11? How everyone cried for those people in the towers and planes and then cheered when we invaded Afghanistan in search of justice? How about when we completely threw all of that away by insisting that the international community and the UN didn't know what they were talking about and invaded Iraq? We could have accomplished so much and that the Bush Administration squandered that is one of the biggest tragedies of the last 6 years.


Also, the fact that the victims of 9/11 never got their justice we so boldly set out to attain is probably the third worst thing. Again, mostly because of Iraq and the blunders of this administration. Sad. Truely.

Back to Top
Ken Majors View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Tree? What tree? OW!!!! Dangit!!!!

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ken Majors Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 10:37pm
In my opinion...if we are going to fight terrorism, or whatever the political catch phrase of the day is.
Whatever we are fighting...
I would much rather we fight it in Assbaghistan, or<insert third world country of the week here>,and not here.

I have carried a weapon into harms way. I didn't like it (I thought I would, until I did). So I no longer do it. I have a choice.
I am an American.

Edited by Ken Majors - 27 April 2006 at 10:40pm
RLTW
Back to Top
PlentifulBalls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Tons of em’

Joined: 14 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9800
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PlentifulBalls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 10:41pm
GUYS IF WE HAVE DEBATES ON THE INTERNET ABOUT IRAQ THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING!

sporx wrote:
well...ya i prolly will be a virgin till i'm at least 30.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 10:47pm

Freakin 56K...took me like an hour to get to this page.

I think both sides of this argument need to on occasions step back and examine their stances. If you either support or oppose Bush blindly, you have no place in an intelligent discussion.

I really don't think President Bush was a great president-in fact, in my opinion, I think he was a rather poor one. My reasoning for this is simple-I think he lacks any initiative whatsoever. He doesn't step up and take control.

The reason his opponents like Ryan and Kent think he's such a failure is simple-he's led a presidency based on tragic events, which, while completely out of his control,  were allowed to mark his presidency. In a time of crisis, when the situation is handled you allow the country to heal, then you move on. President Bush has given our country no hope, he's basically abandoned domestic issues. Remember what marks a great president is his ability to keep the reigns in a bad spot-president Bush didn't show that. When almost all of your speeches revolve around international issues, you're neglecting your domestic issues. I get tired of hearing about terrorism when there have been only a handful of major attacks around the world, while our own homeland stays on the backburner. Bush has forgotten that he's the voice of his administration, I think.

Not saying I'm anti-Bush by any means-you all know that. I think it's completely insane to say he's one of the worst presidents ever.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 12:19am
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

The reason his opponents like Ryan and Kent think he's such a failure is simple-he's led a presidency based on tragic events, which, while completely out of his control,  were allowed to mark his presidency.

Many people certainly do fit that description, but if you read my posts more closely, you will find that rather the opposite is the case for me.

Most of my objections to Bush relate not to special events (I think he handled 9/11 quite well), but to his basic economic policies (steel tariffs, tax policy, fiscal policy) and his relationship to domestic extremists.

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 12:31am
CSgt: I googled the exact text, and found nothing. Which means either you're lying and merely wrote an extremely poorly written opinion, lower than your normal literary standards, or you paraphrased and again wrote even more poorly that you normally do. Neither defends your credibility. I invited you already to bring up the bible thumping in another thread if you so desire.

Moreover, you're being intellectually dishonest. I disagreed with you rather thoroughly, but pages 3 and 4 will show where I agreed with linus on what I believe, but disagreed on what I can *know* and struck a middle ground. You would know this is clear if you chose to read and take in what I said. You're dismissed from this debate until you learn to debate properly.


Clark: No way in hell you're 16. I flat out refuse to believe it. If you're not a university student or graduate I'll eat my own left arm. Even lesbians aren't that smart at 16, and I should know, because at 16 I was reading 1000 page books, and I looooooved women. 16 year olds don't laugh at The O'Reilly Factor. Too bad you're so covert about your id. I'd love to know where you got your smarts from.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Jack Carver View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Carver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 12:35am
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:

Originally posted by FarSeer FarSeer wrote:

He led us into Iraq for no reason at all.

Actually there was this evil dictator guy there named Saddam Hussein. You may have heard of him in the news.... that's why we went into Iraq, to get him out.

Incorrect. The U.S. went into Iraq under the premise of weapons of mass destruction. To date, only extremely small quantities of Chemical munitions have beebn found, however a great deal of speculation abounds over the role of Syria in perhaps helping to conceal chemical and biological weapons. This is currently unresolved.

Whether it was officially declared or not, Saddam's regime was another reason to go into Iraq, besides the chemical weapons they may or may not have. So that's 2 (maybe 1) reasons, and 2 =/= 0, so FarSeer, you're wrong. Bush did have reasons to lead us into Iraq.


He has done NOTHING about the Katrina Hurricane relief.

Hmm... actually he visited the gulf coast, asked Congress to give money to New Orleans, asked the nation for donations, had over 1700 FEMA trucks mobilized to New Orleans, sent 8 Navy vessels to the area, among other things.

Bush is not directly accountable for emergency relief- there is a federal agency to do that; it's called delegation. Katrina is evidence of a systemaic failure by bureaucracy adn agency, not a single failing on the aprt of the president. It's not his job to second guess the head of FEMA when he's told they can deal with a disaster. Granted, he may have been wrong in appointing Michael Brown, but that was not found until AFTER Katrina. Additional fault for New Orleans falls on federal and state legislatures, but very little if any of the blame can be attributed to the executive.

They way I see it, you have to make an attempt before you can fail, so therefore Bush (his administration, etc) did not do NOTHING. Note: I'm not commenting on the quality or quantity of any of the relief support, just saying that the White House didn't sit back and watch CNN while New Orleans was getting demolished. They did SOMETHING, so FarSeer = wrong.


We are STILL looking for Bin Laden. (He left it to the untrained Afganistan soldiers to capture him while we invaded Iraq)

There are still soldiers in Afghanistan right now.

Finding one person in a heavily tribal mountainous area is not easy. We don't even know if Bin Laden's in Afghanistan; he has vast financial resources, and strong tribal and Taliban support. There are coalition soldiers in Afghanistan continuing combat operations against Taliban backed tribal forces. This is still being resolved. Time will tell.

This is pretty much the only decent argument.... you're right that we don't have him yet. FarSeer: +1


The nation is in debt more now than we can fathom.

I don't know... I can fathom quite a bit.This

The United States are currently $8.837 trillion in debt- this accounts for roughly 22% of total world debt owed by one country to another. This is directly attributable to the war in Iraq. The next largest debt is Britain, at just over 7t $USD

I'm in physics... I can fathom numbers 10^9 bigger than that. I'm not saying the amount of debt is small, I'm not saying that debt doesn't matter, just saying that it can indeed be fathomed, when FarSeer does not think it can be.

I can't wait for some forumers with a bit more time on their hands to reply to this. If you want some documents on the Katrina cleanup and Fema's actions I have about 1300 pages of government documentation that might prove you a little different. I'd be happy to post them. The Katrina cleanup might have been one of the biggest disaster follies the nation has ever seen.

I never said the cleanup was a wonderful job, I never said it was organized in a good manner, you're probably right about those things, but all I said originally was that a federally-led relief effort did in fact exist, unlike FarSeer seems to think. I don't think you can prove me wrong there. If you have links saying the government/Bush Admin did NOTHING, please post.


Done.

Thank you for the extra info.


Basically this was just a smart-ass rebutal at FarSeer's argument because it was so exaggerated and biased.

I'm not saying the Bush Administrations made the right decisions, but there were reasons for Iraq, they did do SOMETHING about Katrina, and the amount of debt we have can be "fathomed".

TGIF!!


Edited by Jack Carver - 28 April 2006 at 12:37am
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 12:38am
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

The reason his opponents like Ryan and Kent think he's such a failure is simple-he's led a presidency based on tragic events, which, while completely out of his control,  were allowed to mark his presidency.

Many people certainly do fit that description, but if you read my posts more closely, you will find that rather the opposite is the case for me.

Most of my objections to Bush relate not to special events (I think he handled 9/11 quite well), but to his basic economic policies (steel tariffs, tax policy, fiscal policy) and his relationship to domestic extremists.

Sorry, that's what I was getting at but I didn't have time to phrase it right. I feel like President Bush has placed sole focus on the tragedies of his time in office in an attempt to cover for a very scattered and lackluster domestic policy. Like I said, I feel that he's a good person, and far more intelligent than most people give him credit for. But he just didn't have the right focus-maybe I'm wrong, and I'm certainly not passing judgement because I know I couldn't handle what that man had thrown at him. But that's why there's only one president-you have to be able to handle those kind of things. Most people won't, and shouldn't, be presidents because they're not cut out for it.

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 12:49am
Actually, 8 trillion in debt has the potential to be catastrophic.

The U.S. federal reserve note is the world's foremost reserve currency holding. This confidence allows the U.S. treasury to issue government bonds at relatively low interest and feel secure that they will be bought up, thus giving the government the ability to raise funds urgently needed if such a situation could come to pass. The treasury bonds allow the U.S. to maintia both a domestic and a foreign debt, because everyone trusts that the U.S. economy will cover the value of that debt.

Should that confidence wane, there could be a run to dump the dollar in favour of Euros, Yen, Pounds, and other traditionally stable 'reserve' currenies. This would be traumatically inflationary for the dollar, and would decimate the value, potentially initiating a super or hyperinflationary trend in the U.S. dollar; all it takes is a collective belief to ferment that the U.S. is not good for its debt. China has been making rumblings about this lately, and the dollar has been slowly losing relative value compared to other currencies in the past few years.

All debt is ultimately owed to those holding the instruments of debt, and only long term budget surpluses can eliminate that debt. If cofidence in the dollar is shaken, interest rates will rise to convince banks that treasury bonds are still a good buy, and that will have economic repercussions throughout the U.S. economy. Ultimately the $U.S. owes the total value of its debt, and covering it through issue of new bonds cannot continue forever. The debt must be gradually reduced to restore foreign confidence.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
ANARCHY_SCOUT View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
strike 1 1/24 rudeness to newer members

Joined: 07 August 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4439
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ANARCHY_SCOUT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 12:55am
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:


Out of curiousity, Clark, what's your educational background/level, if you don't mind sharing?

Me?  I'm a 16-year-old lesbian.

Everybody knows that.



I'm still slightly atracted to you.
Same.
Gamertag: Kataklysm999
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 8:04am
Just because the government did something too little too late about Katrina does not get them off the hook. Actually it makes them more responsible for failure. If you're trying to argue semantics,then yes, they did do SOMETHING. However, it was not even close to enough, and yes it is their responsibility as the federal government. So, yes they failed.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 10:36am
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

If cofidence in the dollar is shaken, interest rates will rise to convince banks that treasury bonds are still a good buy, and that will have economic repercussions throughout the U.S. economy.
Not just the US economy.. the whole world. Remember how screwed up the world economy was right after 9/11?

And I dont like the Euro... only reason it's worth more than the dollar is that it has MULTIPLE countries backing it up... All the countires that use it contribute to it's value.

So it doesnt bother me that it's worth more, because it shows it takes a few countries to surpass one of our dollars....

Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 10:46am

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

If cofidence in the dollar is shaken, interest rates will rise to convince banks that treasury bonds are still a good buy, and that will have economic repercussions throughout the U.S. economy.
Not just the US economy.. the whole world. Remember how screwed up the world economy was right after 9/11?

And I dont like the Euro... only reason it's worth more than the dollar is that it has MULTIPLE countries backing it up... All the countires that use it contribute to it's value.

So it doesnt bother me that it's worth more, because it shows it takes a few countries to surpass one of our dollars....

What about the British pound? You can't tell me that Great Britain, Scottland, and Northern Ireland contribute more than the U.S.

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 10:54am
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

If cofidence in the dollar is shaken, interest rates will rise to convince banks that treasury bonds are still a good buy, and that will have economic repercussions throughout the U.S. economy.
Not just the US economy.. the whole world. Remember how screwed up the world economy was right after 9/11? And I dont like the Euro... only reason it's worth more than the dollar is that it has MULTIPLE countries backing it up... All the countires that use it contribute to it's value. So it doesnt bother me that it's worth more, because it shows it takes a few countries to surpass one of our dollars....


What about the British pound? You can't tell me that Great Britain, Scottland, and Northern Ireland contribute more than the U.S.

Here People believe that since more countries back up the currency, it will be more stable.



Edited by Linus - 28 April 2006 at 10:55am

Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 10:56am
Good link, but it even says itself that gold reserve doesn't always equate currency value.
Back to Top
.Ryan View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Neither cool nor annoying

Joined: 25 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4488
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote .Ryan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 10:59am
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

Freakin 56K...took me like an hour to get to this page.

I think both sides of this argument need to on occasions step back and examine their stances. If you either support or oppose Bush blindly, you have no place in an intelligent discussion.

I really don't think President Bush was a great president-in fact, in my opinion, I think he was a rather poor one. My reasoning for this is simple-I think he lacks any initiative whatsoever. He doesn't step up and take control.

The reason his opponents like Ryan and Kent think he's such a failure is simple-he's led a presidency based on tragic events, which, while completely out of his control,  were allowed to mark his presidency. In a time of crisis, when the situation is handled you allow the country to heal, then you move on. President Bush has given our country no hope, he's basically abandoned domestic issues. Remember what marks a great president is his ability to keep the reigns in a bad spot-president Bush didn't show that. When almost all of your speeches revolve around international issues, you're neglecting your domestic issues. I get tired of hearing about terrorism when there have been only a handful of major attacks around the world, while our own homeland stays on the backburner. Bush has forgotten that he's the voice of his administration, I think.

Not saying I'm anti-Bush by any means-you all know that. I think it's completely insane to say he's one of the worst presidents ever.



I agree that no one should support, or hate, Bush Co. blindly. I hate it when anyone does that with anything because it's just ignorant and I certainly don't fit there. Believe it or not, I was a pretty staunch Bush supporter for about the first year of his administration. Then I got interested in politics and actually started paying close attention and realized nearly everything he and his party were doing was fubar.

However, he and his administration are not simply victims of events that were out of their control. I don't fault him for being president on 9/11 or during Katrina or whatnot. I fault him for how he's handled things afterword. He has failed to secure this country, dispite the huge beaureacratic polp he created with the homeland security department. He bilked Afghanistan, he should never have went into Iraq, and then when he did, he bilked that. The federal responce to Katrina was horrible too. Other stuff like the tax cuts and the nclb program also fit in here. He had bad luck in taking office in 2000, but that is no excuse for his failures.

Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 11:31am
My question is how is it allways blamed on Bush, when Congress actually controls the purse strings of the Government. We have one party totally in obstructionist mode, and one trying but a little misguided.

The Katrine mess, The Army Corps of Engineers for years before the Bush Administration warned of the levy system failure. The local Government did little in preperation and or reaction, and then cried for the government to "rescue" them. Does North Dakota ask for federal assistance every time a major snowstorm shuts down everything for up to three days, no the are prepared and local officials have plans in place.

The Border has been a problem for years, again before Bush. Yet now any attempt to "secure" the border and actually enforce exsisting laws on illegal immagration will be seen as "racist", or whatever anti-Bush talking point is deemed necesary for political advantage in November. We could build the fence, deploy NG to augment Border Patrol, bring INS into the suspected industries and load the buses with illegals we all know are there, suspend all the public assistance to illegals as per law, and the response would be? This fiasco May 1st is a prime example, illegals attempting to damage the economy of the country that supports them financially.

The War, is a totally differant issue, it has been said many times by many in the "know" that the Jihad against the west and America is an ongoing war bt those who declared war on America and the west, even before the current UIraq.Afganistan forays. Many senior military see keeping them busy over there, keeps them from coming over here. And look how well negotiations work, Iran is a prime example, that wack will fire off a nuke before he is done. We knew exactly where Hitler was for three years, yet "we never got him" either.

The economy is up there, and still climbing, the obstructionists who will not allow our independence from foriegn oil by allowing refinery contruction and modernization, and or drilling are causing more damage than Bush on oil pricing. With the newer technologies oil drilling and refining is a lot cleaner and "ecology safe" than the 70's. But yet we can not do anything because of the tree huggers, who have no qualms driving thier SUV and standing on thier redwood decks, while others provide thier oil and "damage" thier countries ecology.

Tax Cuts drive an economy, increased taxes slow economies, when the consumer has more to spend and save he does, when the government confiscates more income through taxation there is less for the consumer to spend, so the economy slows, simple economics. Look at our high taxed European socialist societies, not real success stories, France, Britian, etc all in economic trouble.

And no matter who takes the helm in 08, again 47% will not agree or believe he/she is capable of doing what is best for him or her, and the game will continue, and it is getting worse election by elction.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 11:40am
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

If cofidence in the dollar is shaken, interest rates will rise to convince banks that treasury bonds are still a good buy, and that will have economic repercussions throughout the U.S. economy.
Not just the US economy.. the whole world. Remember how screwed up the world economy was right after 9/11?

And I dont like the Euro... only reason it's worth more than the dollar is that it has MULTIPLE countries backing it up... All the countires that use it contribute to it's value.

So it doesnt bother me that it's worth more, because it shows it takes a few countries to surpass one of our dollars....


You're blinded by patriotism, Linus.

OK, so you 'don't like' the Euro- however your opinion is irelevant in this case compared to the opinions of central banks of many nations. Yes, the United States is a single political entity, but geographically it's more than tiwce as big as the European Union. Yet the European Union has a nearly identical gross domestic product, and more people. No, not all EU countries are using the Euro yet, but they're all well on their way (excepting the United Kingdom and Denmark).

The trouble with the U.S. federal reserve note as a reserve currency is that a single government has the power to destabilize it, whereas the Euro is pegged to the economies of a number of fundamentally stable countries. Were any of their economies to fluctuate, the Euro would be largely balanced by the stability of the rest. The Euro also shows lower rates of inflation than the $USD. A crude but apt analogy would be comparing the $USD as a single stock equity, while comparing the Euro to a mutual fund- great long term stability, and potentially larger value. The U.S. dollar can fluctuate relatively easily, with potentially great loss or value. The Euro, pegged to so many indicators of value, is inherently much more stable. The Euro has also shown a steady trend to increse in value against the dollar.

The United States is run by a single, relatively powerful executive whose initiatives have a strong power to threaten the stability of the U.S. economy- and more importantly, confidence therein. The European Union is more inherently stable in a long term economic sense. The EU also has enough collective military strength to hold its own in any international conflict.

For a major bank looking for a stable currency to put their liquidity into as a currency reserve, the Euro is almost an idiotically obvious and attractive alternative to the dollar these days. The Euro is only showing iscreasing strength and stability, while the $USD is in a state of flux, and epgged to a single economy vulnerable to executive decisions and legislative pressures.

Yes, it may take 'a few countries to surpass one of our dollars' (disregarding Great Britain, Cyprus, Malta, Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain, all of whom trade at below $1USD), but economically that means nothing. Economis is 90% based on consumer confidence and the confidence of international banking establishments.

The Euro is a currency inherently more valuable AND stale than the dollar. Those two combined will serve only to solidify its position as a reserve currency, and in the next ten to fifteen years I predict a general move away from the dollar to the Euro- with dangerous results for the U.S. currency, and reduced buying power for the American corporation and consumer.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2006 at 11:58am

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

You're blinded by patriotism, Linus.

Highlighting this excellent observation - although this problem is certainly not limited to Linus.

Many people are unable to distinguish between how things actually are, and how they think thing ought to be.

As to the currency issue - obviously a hideously complex matter.  But is a wrinkle to consider:  When a large commercial bank lends a zillion dollars to a large company in a different country, chances are pretty good that the loan is made in US dollars, even if neither the bank or the borrower are American.  The same is also true of many non-loan commercial transactions.  National debts around the world are also mostly measured in US dollars.

This means that all of these banks, borrowers, and countries must maintain or hedge dollar reserves.  This both props up the currency and stabilizes it (since many dollars are essentially tucked away under a mattress).

The US dollar has had a near monopoly on major international money transactions for many years.  But as other currencies become more stable, they become attractive alternatives.  This is aggravated by the high US national debt, which leads some to think that a dollar devaluation may be necessary.

The Euro in particular has arisen as a competitor.  Many large international loan transactions (even some involving US companies) are now conducted in Euros instead of US dollars.  I don't know if this is a growing trend or has stabilized, or whether a significant amount of national debts are now measured in Euros, but there clearly is a change underway.

And if the World Bank starts using the Euro, if most international debts (public and private) are measured in Euros rather than dollars, this would be a MAJOR blow to the US economy.  We have coasted to our benefit on the strength of the dollar for decades.  If we don't watch it, we may soon find out how the other half lives.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.218 seconds.