The results are in, The surge is working

[bush_cheney2004]

Did you even open the link I posted? The formula for how GDP is calculated is right there. It is pretty clear cut.

The 'formula' isn't the point....American economic growth and GDP have surged ahead despite trade deficits. The net impact of the trade imbalance has not reduced GDP.

At the moment much of the United States government spending is deficit spending, not harmful necessarily except when it is as massive as during the Bush administration. There is simply no fiscal responsibility whatsoever.

More nonsense....the US federal budget is almost $3 trillion dollars....much of the spending is not "deficit spending".

Finally (exports-imports) will give you either a trade surplus or a trade deficit. In the case of a trade deficit, this will amount to a negative number and therefore TAKE AWAY from GDP. There fiscal and motary policy actually have a large impact on GDP.

Again, US GDP has grown to be the largest in the world despite trade deficits.

The US did have large deficits during WW2, and followed it with massive investments in Europe for rebuilding those economies, which paid off. You are atempting to do the same in the Middle East, however the money spent is not the same as after WW2.

The Marshall plan simply gave money to European nations who used this to rebuild their infrastructures and economies. I would contend that this is not what is happening in the middle east. I woud also contend that Europe had infrastructure in place which merely needed repairs/upgrades, whereas in many middle eastern countries you are forced to build these from the ground up which is far more expensive if it works at all.

Yea...it will never work....just look at Japan. Do you mind if the Americans still try to do it anyway? We are 300,000,000 people from all over the world. Canada...not as many....but still plenty of debt.

Edited November 17, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jawapunk]

You are just not getting it. Your GDP is growing because of the rdiciulous amounts of money being spent on Iraq. Your $3 trillion federal budget is not in the black, it is in the red. You are BORROWING vast amounts of this amount in order to meet your spending needs.

This federal spending that is BORROWED is called DEFICIT SPENDING, as in money that you do not have.

Again, the Marshall plan worked for Europe and Japan because those economies had infrastructures in place and modern economies. The money repaired and kick started these economies. In the middle east you are dealing with countries whoe leaders have been pocketing fortunes while the vast majority do without. There is little infrastructure in place, if any and cultures and economies that are not concurrent with modern western ones.

This means it will be FAR more expensive and the results may not be what you are looking for. Especially since as I said, many of these countries have leaderships that have historically funnelled money to the elite and done nothing for their people.

There is nothing nonsensical about my arguments. I think you are really reaching, don't worry about losing some face here. It is ok to be wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is nothing nonsensical about my arguments. I think you are really reaching, don't worry about losing some face here. It is ok to be wrong.

Yes...by your own admission, you were just shown to be wrong about GDP growth. I will do it again...because the deficit is not MUCH of the US federal budget, it is only about $300 billion and is shrinking!

From Wiki:

Estimated US government receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2.4 trillion.

$1.1 trillion - Individual income tax

$884.1 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes

$260.6 billion - Corporate income tax

$74.6 billion - Excise taxes

$28.1 billion - Customs duties

$23.7 billion - Estate and gift taxes

$48.4 billion - Other

The IRS estimated that there were about $345 billion in uncollected taxes.[1]

Total spending

The President's budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security

$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]

$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare

$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare

$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related

$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt

$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training

$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation

$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits

$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice

$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment

$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs

$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture

$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development

$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology

$23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy

$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

The Marshall Plan was for Europe..not Japan. Canada supplied the horsemeat.

Edited November 17, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jawapunk]

Here is another nice link for you to read. Check out HISTORICAL TRENDS:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf

After peaking at $290 billion in 1992, deficits declined each year, dropping to a level of $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, the Nation recorded its first budget surplus ($69.2 billion) since 1969...return to deficits ($157.8 billion, 1.5% of GDP) in 2002.

Hold on I'll find some more

[jawapunk]

Ummm..I said I was wrong about GDP. I 'm pretty sure I have proved you completly wrong in that regard. You simply dismiss the formula it is calculated on as irrelevant. You completely miss the point.

Could you give me the link to the wikipedia as I cannot find what you are stating.

[jawapunk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_Policy...e_United_States

Umm it pretty clearly states here your country is running a deficit every single year. In 2005 alone it was $319 billion.

Here is another link stating that the public debt in 2007 stands at $5.04 TRILLION. Also in 2005 the debt accounted for 64.7% of GDP. I am pretty sure you can draw the same conclusions as I have when faced with this evidence. you can take your time apologizing to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt

Edited November 17, 2007 by jawapunk

[bush_cheney2004]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_Policy...e_United_States

Umm it pretty clearly states here your country is running a deficit every single year. In 2005 alone it was $319 billion.

You are only parroting back what I have already posted...proving yourself wrong. With a 2007 federal budget of $2.8 trillion, a $300 billion deficit is not "much" of government spending...it is more like 11% of spending.

I don't know what you're attempting to demonstrate vis-a-vis the Iraq war and American economy. Clearly America can afford the war and then some. It has done so before.

[bush_cheney2004]

I should also add that Americans in general had to make huge sacrifices economically during WW2. The public bought war bonds and also had widespread rationing on almost all food and goods. This is not the case now which is why the government is forced to borrow so much money

The US "public" still buys federal, state and municipal bonds...and treasuries...war or not.

[jawapunk]

It is fairly useless to discuss this with you. You have no conception of economics and I have not parroted anything back to you, but rather brought other links together to demonstrate major flaws and holes in your arguments.

It is sad that you cannot admit when you have clearly argued in error. It is a part of debate, you win some and lose some. If you don't think that 5.04 trillion in public debt and deficit spending that has increased to hundreds of billions per year is irresponsible and unsustainable there is something seriously wrong with both your logic and reasoning.

Anyways. I have made my case. If you wish to have the last word that is fine. It is not important nor will it indicate any further substance to this debate. I am fairly confident I have demonstrated what I needed to. If you continue to blindly follow and ignore stated fact that is your delusion not mine.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is sad that you cannot admit when you have clearly argued in error. It is a part of debate, you win some and lose some. If you don't think that 5.04 trillion in public debt and deficit spending that has increased to hundreds of billions per year is irresponsible and unsustainable there is something seriously wrong with both your logic and reasoning.

I don't think you understand my position on the matter...I simply don't care about your arbitrarily chosen point of economic doom. People like you were predicting economic collapse over 20 years ago for the same reasons.

Anyways. I have made my case. If you wish to have the last word that is fine. It is not important nor will it indicate any further substance to this debate. I am fairly confident I have demonstrated what I needed to. If you continue to blindly follow and ignore stated fact that is your delusion not mine.

Great...because you could have at least mentioned Iraq a few times.

[M.Dancer]

December saw the lowest figure for US troops killed as well as the lowest number of attacks by iraqis on iraqis since the war began. Only 24 coalition troops were killed compared to over 100 in june.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

While in the Globe and Mail they write that a US group has picked "surge" as an over used word, hopefully the surge will continue in Iraq. The war is not all but won, but it seems to be headed in the right direction as attacks by shia and sunnion each other have decreased remarkably.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

There can only be a political solution to the sectarian violence in Iraq, I wonder would Canadians approve of our troops being sent there as "traditional" peacekeepers if a disengagement deal gets made? Someone has to stand between the two sides....

[jdobbin]

While in the Globe and Mail they write that a US group has picked "surge" as an over used word, hopefully the surge will continue in Iraq. The war is not all but won, but it seems to be headed in the right direction as attacks by shia and sunnion each other have decreased remarkably.

There can only be a political solution to the sectarian violence in Iraq, I wonder would Canadians approve of our troops being sent there as "traditional" peacekeepers if a disengagement deal gets made? Someone has to stand between the two sides....

There has to be a political solution as you say. There isn't one now. As soon as the U.S. leaves, the sectarian violence is a likely outcome.

What you are suggesting is partition. The U.S. has created a military partition of Iraq. There hasn't been a political consensus on partition. There hasn't been a political consensus on much of anything in Iraq. I don't see a peace force from the U.N. even being asked to come if there isn't some deal in place.

The underlying issues are simply boiling under the surface.

Edited January 2, 2008 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

What you are suggesting is partition.

I don't recall suggesting that. I wouldn't take it off the table, but neither did I suggest that.

I would hazard to say a more workable suggestion is powersharing, where the minorityy sunni are not politically dominated by the shia.

[jdobbin]

I don't recall suggesting that. I wouldn't take it off the table, but neither did I suggest that.

I would hazard to say a more workable suggestion is powersharing, where the minorityy sunni are not politically dominated by the shia.

I took standing between two side as partition. The surge has basically made it near impossible for Iraqis to have mobility outside certain areas. The U.S. has separated neighborhoods and regions from attacking one another.

Powersharing is what they have been trying to do for a couple of years. It has not worked very well at all.

The objective of the surge was to create the stability needed to help the government find its footing. In this matter, it has failed. The government is not working and continues not to work because the issues just seem so intractable.

[Keepitsimple]

It did my heart good to read this in the Toronto Sun yesterday:

"We consider our fighting against al-Qaida to be a popular revolution against the devil," said Sheik Mohammed Saleh al-Dohan, head of one of the groups in southern Ramadi, a city in Anbar province where the movement was born.

Al-Dohan blamed al-Qaida, which espouses a radical version of Sunni Islam, for bringing destruction to Iraq: "They made enemies between Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who lived in peace for centuries."

Osama bin Laden and his fighters "are the traitors who betrayed the Muslim nation and brought shame to Islam in all the world," he said.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/World/2008/...pf-4747685.html

[jbg]

I took standing between two side as partition. The surge has basically made it near impossible for Iraqis to have mobility outside certain areas. The U.S. has separated neighborhoods and regions from attacking one another.

Powersharing is what they have been trying to do for a couple of years. It has not worked very well at all.

The objective of the surge was to create the stability needed to help the government find its footing. In this matter, it has failed. The government is not working and continues not to work because the issues just seem so intractable.

What would you suggest, the peace of the grave enforced by Saddam and his butchers?