the attack on saudi oil

What?

How exactly has anyone anywhere been "punishing" them economically for decades?

That doesn't even make sense. Venezuela was the economic leader of the Latin American. They were a net exporter of food, and had nearly unlimited natural resources.

How were they "punished"?

Sanctions that began the minute Chavez got elected.

An attempted coup sponsored by the US in 2002, that failed when the people angrily rose up against the military and put Chavez back into power.

Please tell me, that you are not just making up an excuse, to cover up the fact that Venezuela's socialist policies wiped out their economy, and now magically they were retroactively being punished for decades.

Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

I'm sorry that you are too stupid to realize how we've been punishing the place for picking an economic system we don't like.

US Media Ignore—and Applaud—Economic War on Venezuela

A: I don't buy the idea that an attempted coup, caused farms in Venezuela to stop producing rice, converting an nation that was a net exporter of food, into a nation of mass starvation. Especially since the coup clearly failed, and honestly if the US was really supporting the coup, there is no way it would have failed.

B: Be specific. What specific sanctions caused farmers to stop growing rice, and change Venezuela form a net export of food, to starving?

See the problem is, Sanctions didn't do half of the damage you claim. For example, you link to your completely biased left-wing fake news site, claims it prevent food from getting into Venezuela. How true that is, is questionable.

However what isn't questionable, is that Venezuela produced more food than they could possibly eat, before Chavez got control, yanked land from productive farmers and gave it to unproductive peasants.

What isn't questionable is that price controls made selling food in Venezuela unprofitable for the people in the country, and it can be assumed it was unprofitable for those outside the country to export their food to Venezuela.

What isn't questionable, is that when the government nationalized the oil industry in the 1970s, production fell. When they opened up the oil industry to foreign investment in the late 80s to 90s, production increased. When Chavez confiscated foreign owned oil production assets, production crashed.

You could make the case that sanctions made selling Venezuelan oil hard. You could.... in theory, try and make that case. But sanctions had nothing to do with the drop in the actual production of oil, regardless of price. That loss of production happened when the price of oil was at it's highest levels.

The only explanation for that is socialism.
Nope. It was corruption that killed Venezuela.
 
Here is what is being missed in the SA attack.

Saudi has purchased air defense systems from the US that was to protect them from these attacks.

So who would know how to avoid these systems? Did they know where the holes were? Did they know how to fool those systems? Maybe the systems were "turned off" to allow the attack.

How do ten low flying missiles get the SA unnoticed?

Who benefits from an Iran/Saudi war?
1) Israel. They would know how to circumvent the US supplied missile defense systems.
2) Any other oil producing nation. Such as the U.S. Did Trump get with his cohort Nitwitandyahoo and devise this plan. Israel's enemies are weakened and the US oil companies rake in the cash with rising oil prices..

This could be another wag the dog.
Seriously?

SA is large enough that it's not unlikely their borders could be breached unnoticed by high speed missiles. Drug runners breach Americas southern border regularly in a Cessna.

We already share missile defense technology with Isreal. Both ways. What Antisemitic conspiracy theory are you implying?

Alex Jones much?

I see planes all the time.

Low flying missiles , not so much.

So who had the information & technology to avoid our missile defense systems. Or are you saying our systems don't work.
 
Reagan never came up with trickle down. And in reality the rich paid more taxes under Reagan, than they did under Carter.

Regardless, everyone was better off under Reagan, and Clinton, which largely followed the economic policies of Reagan.

Inequality is normal, and in fact, I believe good.

The idea that people who do nothing, should have the same amount of wealth as those who work their asses off, is the most immoral of all positions to have.

Moreover, the idea that people who take no risk, should have the same amount wealth as those to take all the risk, is equally immoral.

Even if you work 40 hours a week, you own zero risk. The average owner of a McDonald's franchise has invested over a one million dollars of his own money to have that franchise.

That's the problem with all you anti-capitalist pro-socialist decrying inequality people. You scream about how the owners get so much money, and the workers don't. But what happens when that McDonald's store closes?

See you are all real quick to scream about equality, when the owners are making the big bucks. But magically silent when they are losing the big bucks.

If you really want true equality, then here is my proposal. Let's force all employees to put in equal stakes in the company. If the company does well, then they'll get equal money from the profits. But if the company folds, then all the workers own all the debt equally as well.

The McDonald's I worked at in high school, closed one year after I left. The owner lost everything. I didn't have to pay a dime.

But let's put your "equality" system. The average McDonald's costs $2.4 Million dollars, and has a crew of 40 people. The business goes bust. Ok, everyone owes about $60,000.

That's equal right? You want equality right? Of course your equality would bankrupt most employees, which is why you don't want equality.

Equality is just a word you use to cover for your greed and envy. You only want equality, when there is a reward. You don't want it when there is risk.

Henry Heinz went completely bankrupt when he tried to sell horseradish. No one was complaining about him being a robber baron then. It was only when he was successful selling ketchup, that people started complaining.

Equality is only a term used, when someone sees someone else with more than them.
i don't see many Americans going on vacation in Columbia, and complaining about equality because they themselves have more than 99% of the Colombians"]It's just greed and envy, and it is evil. You should stop it.
"The idea that people who do nothing, should have the same amount of wealth as those who work their asses off, is the most immoral of all positions to have"

Nobody has that position.
That right there is the fundamental misunderstanding and dishonest representation of the Progressive agenda.

But that is the position.

When you post those graphs showing some people have more, and some people have less, and then claim that inequality is bad.....

Do you know how much work, the people who have more, have done to earn it?

No. You do not know.

Do you know how much work, those people who have less, have done to earn it?

No. You do not know.

So on what basis are you saying that the inequality is wrong?

You have to be assuming that those who have more should not have it, regardless of what they did to earn it, and those who have less, should have more regardless of what they did to earn it.

That is the progressive agenda.

People who work wisely, and work hard, and save or invest their money wisely, will end up wealthy. That hard work and effort, should naturally result in those with much more, relative to those who do not do those things.

The CEO of VMWare, was making $8 Million dollars a year. Did you know that Pat Gelsinger was regularly putting in 80-hours a week?
Mark Zuckerberg was up by 5:30 AM every morning, and regularly stayed until 6 PM.
Carol Smith, of Harper’s Bazaar, comes in on Sunday for 4 hours, to catch up on work without any distractions.
Tim Cook of Apple, is answering emails by 4:30 AM.

Daily Routines of Fortune 500 Leaders (and What You Can Learn from Them)

So when you look at the people with the wealth, they are typically working exceptionally hard. That is why they are have all the money.

And when you look at the poorest people in this country, who want to clock in for 8 hours only, and clock out, and invest none of their own capital, own none of the risk of a business failure.... it's no wonder they have very little wealth.

Even with those people though, the biggest problem is that they simply handle money badly.

A janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune and left most of it to his library and hospital

How can a janitor working a standard shift, end up a multimillionaire? He used money wisely, and invested it.
And how many of the struggling work 9-10 hours a day at their job only to go to a second job later.
Far far far far far more than the CEOs doing it.

Very few. That is the answer. Few people are working 10 hours a day, and then getting a second job. Very few.

Ocasio-Cortez wrong on several counts about unemployment

Even the ridiculously left-wing Politifact has to admit, that AOC's 'everyone is working 80 hours, and having multiple jobs' is a liar liar pants on fire statement.

And again..... honestly, if you are struggling to make ends meet working 40 hours a week, then one of two things is true:

A: You need to get a better job, and yes you can. I've done it. Other people have done it. Most people started off with a crap job, and got a better one, and then a better one after that.

B: You need to stop living above, or right at your means. Right now it's 90º outside, and I have the window open, and I have a fan on. Do I have central air? Yes. But that costs money, and I make the choice to live below my means. And honestly, I grew up in a house that didn't have A/C until about 5 years after I left home.

You can choose to live within your means.
You can choose to get a better job.

Anyone can. It's a choice.
The solution to a persons struggles, is in the mirror.

More importantly, if you waste your life, waiting for government to fix your struggles, you life will never improve. Nothing government does is going to fix your struggling. It never has in the history of the world, and it will not here either. The USA is not magically above all other countries, where we can ignore economics, and just vote for the magic money tree to drop on us everything we want.

1) I never said everyone was working two jobs. I said there are more people working two jobs than there are 80 hour week CEOs. Don't run around saying all CEOs work 80 hours & then yell at anyone when they say some [eople work the same hours. Quit being such an ass.

2) People can just go out & find better jobs. If not, they can choose not to feed their kids? Again, what an ass.

3) Since when in a great economy does the deficit skyrocket & the Fed needs to bail it out to avoid a recession.

Magic money tree???? When you slash revenues & increase spending & you are shocked when it doesn't work.

1. The vast vast majority of people are not working two jobs. In fact it's barely 5% of the work force at best. And while there may be more people working two jobs, than 80-Hour CEOs in absolute numbers, that is not true as a percentage of CEOs to the percentage of workers. The vast vast majority of CEOs are putting in 50+ hours a week. You specifically said 80-hour, and I wager that's the extreme... but the overwhelming majority of CEOs are putting in more than 50. Easily.

2. No, they CAN go and find a better job. Look, I'm not saying anything that I myself have not done. Look at me right now.... I have NO DEGREE. I have NO CERTIFICATIONS. I have NO TRADE SKILLS. I have no education whatsoever. I don't know anyone. I have no network of people to get a job from. I have nothing. Nothing at all.

I have gone and gotten a better job, numerous times. Numerous. I have doubled my wage in the last 5 years.
It's not hard either. You just have to work well.

By work well, I mean showing up on time. Not most days, but every day. Work during work time. Don't do this 20 minute long 15-minute breaks, and several smoke breaks between. Get your stuff done. Consistently. Do whatever you are asked to do. Don't say this BS-line "Not my job". And lastly, get along with people. Show up with a smile. Act like you want to be there, even if you don't.

You do those things, and that alone will move you up the income ladder. And then you have dozens of ways you can educate yourself. Online course you can take at home, instead of watching TV. Get a job at Walmart, and use their tuition reimbursement program to start taking classes. I know lady who did just that. I know a guy that was working for $10/hour, and was taking one class a semester, paid his way through. Yeah, it was several years to get his degree, but he's got it now.

There are endless ways to advance in this country. Endless. 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a guy who saved up $900, and bought a pickup truck. Stop giving me your endless left-wing excuses, and go make your life better. And don't sit here and tell people they can't succeed in life, when I am telling them that they can. That makes YOU the ass. Left-wingers are the real asses in this world, because they keep everyone poor, by convincing them they can't succeed.

3. Since when in a great economy does the deficit skyrocket & the Fed needs to bail it out to avoid a recession.
What does this ^^^^^^^^^^ have to do with this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?

The status of the economy, has NOTHING to do with deficits, debt, or the Fed.

Michael Jackson made by most estimates, over a Billion dollars in his life.

At the time of his death, he was almost bankrupt.
By your logic we should ask

"Since when did MJ have a great career if he had deficits, debt, and almost bankrupt?"

Having a great career and income, has NOTHING to do with deficits, debt, and bankruptcy (read bailouts).

In the 1920s, there was a massive recession. Government income went from $6.6 Billion, down to $3.6 Billion. Government income fell by almost half.
However, between Harding and Coolidge, government spending was cut. The result was the US government went from a deficit in 1919, to a Billion dollar surplus by 1924. Understand they had an income of $3 Billion, and were banking almost a Billion.

How much deficits and debt, and the need of a bailout, has nothing to do with the status of the economy. It has to do with spend. Debt and deficits and bailouts are EXCLUSIVELY tied to spending. You have a major recession, and not need a bailout, and have a surplus.

Ironically, I have lived this out in my own life. About 10 years ago, I got laid off from my job. I found another job that paid less than the job I had. Not only did I not go into debt, but I also paid down some prior debts, and by the end of the year had money left over.

You just spend less. You CAN spend less. The government's debt and deficits are due to spending. We need to cut entitlements, reduce grants and subsidies, cut green energy programs, and reduce government waste.

The economy could be doing twice as good as it is now, and we'd still have deficits. Social Security is going to go bust, no matter what the economy does. Medicare is going to go bust, no matter what the economy does.

We need to fix those things.
 
What?

How exactly has anyone anywhere been "punishing" them economically for decades?

That doesn't even make sense. Venezuela was the economic leader of the Latin American. They were a net exporter of food, and had nearly unlimited natural resources.

How were they "punished"?

Sanctions that began the minute Chavez got elected.

An attempted coup sponsored by the US in 2002, that failed when the people angrily rose up against the military and put Chavez back into power.

Please tell me, that you are not just making up an excuse, to cover up the fact that Venezuela's socialist policies wiped out their economy, and now magically they were retroactively being punished for decades.

Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

I'm sorry that you are too stupid to realize how we've been punishing the place for picking an economic system we don't like.

US Media Ignore—and Applaud—Economic War on Venezuela

A: I don't buy the idea that an attempted coup, caused farms in Venezuela to stop producing rice, converting an nation that was a net exporter of food, into a nation of mass starvation. Especially since the coup clearly failed, and honestly if the US was really supporting the coup, there is no way it would have failed.

B: Be specific. What specific sanctions caused farmers to stop growing rice, and change Venezuela form a net export of food, to starving?

See the problem is, Sanctions didn't do half of the damage you claim. For example, you link to your completely biased left-wing fake news site, claims it prevent food from getting into Venezuela. How true that is, is questionable.

However what isn't questionable, is that Venezuela produced more food than they could possibly eat, before Chavez got control, yanked land from productive farmers and gave it to unproductive peasants.

What isn't questionable is that price controls made selling food in Venezuela unprofitable for the people in the country, and it can be assumed it was unprofitable for those outside the country to export their food to Venezuela.

What isn't questionable, is that when the government nationalized the oil industry in the 1970s, production fell. When they opened up the oil industry to foreign investment in the late 80s to 90s, production increased. When Chavez confiscated foreign owned oil production assets, production crashed.

You could make the case that sanctions made selling Venezuelan oil hard. You could.... in theory, try and make that case. But sanctions had nothing to do with the drop in the actual production of oil, regardless of price. That loss of production happened when the price of oil was at it's highest levels.

The only explanation for that is socialism.
Nope. It was corruption that killed Venezuela.

Hmmm... no. It was socialism. Corruption is an excuse by left-wingers to blame anything but their failed ideology.

Perfect example, the Soviet Union. When Stalin was in power, by nearly every measure he was a true believer, and fully followed his ideals.

That didn't change the fact that yanking away farm land, eliminating the managers of industry, resulted in a massive crash of the economy under Stalin. This is why even under Stalin, they still had capitalist based farms that the government didn't confiscate, because those capitalist farms were keeping the country alive. The communal farms were epic failures, because shockingly taking land away from wealthy people (who happen to know how to farm which is why they are wealthy and run a farm), and giving it to "the people" who don't know how to farm, results in crop failure.

Corruption is the result of the economic crash, which is the result of socialism.

Corruption didn't cause land to end up in the hands of poor people in Venezuela. It was in fact, government adhering to it's ideals of taking from the rich, and giving to the poor. Corruption didn't cause all the companies to shut down and leave the country. It was price controls that made operating there unprofitable.

Corruption was the result of the people in government, realizing they were losing everything, and decided to get whatever they could, and leave the country with it, while they still had time. They realized things are getting bad, and all their investments were tanking, so they started siphoning money to offshore accounts, because they knew this wasn't going to last.

Corruption is the result of a tanking economy.
The tanking economy was the result of socialism. Socialism never works. Never has. Never will.
 
The status of the economy, has NOTHING to do with deficits, debt, or the Fed.

We need to fix those things.

de9.jpg

~S~
 

Forum List

Back
Top