Another outrageous liberal Myth, top 5

[Uncensored2008]

It CAN cause the price of those goods to rise. That's not guaranteed, however.

Actually, it IS guaranteed. There is a ratio of currency to goods. Increase currency in relation to goods, and the value of that currency will by necessity rise. You said it yourself, it cannot be otherwise.

In a large and complex market, some goods may be effected to a greater extent than others, but the level of goods to currency will seek equilibrium.

Transferred from whom?

Transferred from those with dollars to those with goods. If we say the value of the goods remained static, then the value of the dollars declined. What took $1 in exchange yesterday, requires $2 today. The man with $20 in his pocket saw his real wealth decline by 50%

That's certainly the normal run of events, and has been for 30 years. But it needn't be that way.

This was unprecedented in two ways. First, the overall scope of flooding the market with currency. Secondly, the targeting of specific beneficiaries such as Goldman Sachs, Chase and B of A. While the American people may not have understood what the mechanism was, the reality is a huge percentage of the real wealth of the middle class was looted on behalf of the well connected.

"Tax cuts for the rich" is a populist bullshit slogan to excite the stupid - THIS was the real mechanism for transferring wealth from the middle, upwards.

 

[BlindBoo]

Saddam didn't have to develop chemical and biological weapons- Reagan and Rumsfeld gave them to him in the eighties...The stupid adventurist covert-crazy chickenhawk Neocons fegged up Iraq and Afghan totally- Ignored warnings of 9/11. lied about mushroom clouds and yellow cake, and for good measure ruined the world economy, and Pub Dupes STILL listen to their irresponsible BS, now screwing and paralyzing the economy....
Dems passed TARP more than these A-holes, and stimulus by themselves, the reason the economy grew by 1.9% last year- pubs are now responsible for the 1.7% this year, and are STILL blowing 2012- thanks myth and lie believing Ugly 'Merican tools of the greedy rich. Fegging morons.

Not quite. The Raygun Administration did remove Iraq from the nations who support terrorist, thereby by giving Saddam the ability to purchase Western Technology. This include all the technology needed to produce the advance bio-chemical weapons he used on the Kurds and Iranians. Though he did not purchased it all from the USA. They also gave him billions in loans (which he defaulted on 4 months into his short lived conquering of Kuwait). This also allowed our allies (Germany, Great Brittan, France.....) to sell to him as well. He even sent agents abroad to aquire technology that the US denied him as well. He was able to put together an impressive Manhatten Project style nuclear program that was not discovered untill the first Iraq war.

So as far as arming Iraq with western technology we(American Tax payers) can all say:

"An I Helped"

 

[8537]

It CAN cause the price of those goods to rise. That's not guaranteed, however.

Actually, it IS guaranteed. There is a ratio of currency to goods. Increase currency in relation to goods, and the value of that currency will by necessity rise. You said it yourself, it cannot be otherwise.

of course it can be otherwise. It depends on the savings/consumption ratio and the velocity of money.

Transferred from those with dollars to those with goods. If we say the value of the goods remained static, then the value of the dollars declined. What took $1 in exchange yesterday, requires $2 today. The man with $20 in his pocket saw his real wealth decline by 50%

But there's no guarantee the value of that dollar will decline. For "more money chasing fewer goods" to cause inflation, the speed of chasing has to remain the same. Plus, if the added money increased the output then some of the money is eaten up by increased production instead of inflation. The Fisher Equation has two variables on each side for a reason.

If you're looking for me to disagree about TARP being a bailout of the rich, you're looking in the wrong corner.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But there's no guarantee the value of that dollar will decline. For "more money chasing fewer goods" to cause inflation, the speed of chasing has to remain the same. Plus, if the added money increased the output then some of the money is eaten up by increased production instead of inflation. The Fisher Equation has two variables on each side for a reason.

If you're looking for me to disagree about TARP being a bailout of the rich, you're looking in the wrong corner.

Actually, I was for once finding common ground between us. What you wrote was accurate and sensible. Note that I added a thanks to it.

 

[JRK]

Saddam SAID he had WMD's.

He kicked the inspectors out.

He wanted Iran to believe he had WMD's.

He succeeded.

End of story.

If you are standing in a dark corner and are lawfully ordered by police to put down any weapons and come out with your hands up, but instead you claim you have a gun and you refuse to comply, when the cops shoot you, it's justified...whether you actually had a gun or not is irrelevant.

Saddam was not a threat to us

We knew he was not a threat

It was not worth wasting 4000 US lives over

And before 9-11 I would have said Osama bin Laden wasn't a threat to us.

When a couple of 747's can kill thousands, a defeated enemy who claims to have WMD's, has used WMD's on his enemies and his own people, has attempted to assasinate a President of the United States and, in defiance of the Gulf War ceasefire, ejects all weapons inspectors from the country must be considered a threat.

Only a fool would NOT consider such an enemy a threat to the United States.

The press has spun this entire event out so bad. There was over 500 munitions found that should have not been there
The bottom line is Saddam had years to do the right thing. He refused to. in 2003 he no longer was given a choice