|
|
On April 20 2012 07:12 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 06:59 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:41 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:33 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:25 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:22 Hinanawi wrote:
Voted Obama in 2008, will not be voting in 2012. Well, I will go to vote on the California propositions and such, but I'll probably leave the President section blank, or write in my own name.
Philosophically I'm still closer to Obama than to Romney, but I can't in good conscience vote the 'lesser of two evils' when even the lesser of two evils still set the precedent of trial-less assassinations of US citizens, and continues to make America into Israel's dog, draining our resources and the lives of our soldiers over something that doesn't concern us.
Of course, Romney is just as bad or worse on most of those points, but again, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's so much evil in both. I get this, but the problem is that this kind of attitude brought to the world stage George W Bush. People need to vote democrat. GWB wasn't that bad of a president, I hate it when people spout that bullshit. I think he did a bad job when it came to tax cuts (he should have been going the other way on taxes), but otherwise I don't think it was that bad. I think Obama has done better but both have been good presidents. spout that bullshit? Lets see dumb things that he did: 1) Invaded Iraq by making up lies, setting his lackeys on people who opposed the invasion because...there was no good reason for the invasion. 2) Two tax cuts that helped to accelerate the trend of income inequality, turned a budget surplus into a historic deficit 3) Cut back on financial regulation, setting up the crisis in 07 very nicely while pushing for a 'home ownership' society that pushed more and more people into buying homes. 4) extra judicial torture is a o k! 5) Tried to put his personally lackey on the Supreme Court, a move so egregious even his own party opposed it. 6) Sat on his hands while oil prices went from under 50 dollars a barrel to 168 [and hey why not, his friends in the oil industry appreciated the help!] 7) Sat on his hands while China de-industralized America, watched passively while a historic trade deficit widened further than ever 8) Encouraged Israel to engage in highly aggressive behavior that did nothing for America, well most of America, the defense contractors who got rich obviously appreciate that Israel used up its advanced munitions very rapidly so new orders could be filled 9) No child left behind act. Jerry rigged a system that encourages 0 actual educational improvement but promotes teaching a standardized test 10) Packed the Supreme Court with political justices that have no problem seeing corporations as people but think the healthcare mandate of all things is unconstitutional This is just off the top of my head. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president post WW2, easily. 1) That's an opinion 2) That's an opinion, although most economists agree 3) The bill that deregulated the housing industry was signed by Clinton 4) Obama still agrees, but it's again an opinion 5) That's an opinion, and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle not in the political world thought it was a good idea. 6) That's ridiculous - just like it's ridiculous that Obama gets blamed for high gas prices. 7) That's an opinion. Most economists agree that Free Trade is important. Significant import tariffs will just lead to retaliation from the other country. 8) That's an opinion. Some people (though not me) think that Palestine is the bad guy here. 9) Do you have a better idea? 10) That's an opinion - technically a corporation is a person as per the law. And the health care mandate being unconstitutional is pretty highly likely. Even as a moderate I agree that it probably oversteps the boundaries, although I like the idea of the law. 11) Presided during the September 11 attack, despite having intelligence and forewarning of an imminent attack. 12) Bungled Hurricane Katrina. 13) Disbanded the operation to find and kill Osama Bin Laden.
11) Seriously?
12) Thanks for such a great critique
13) Find me a legitimate source.
|
It's ridiculous.
Bush wasn't an amazing president, but he's painted a lot worse than he actually was. I think all of the past presidents in my lifetime have done a fine job.
|
On April 20 2012 07:21 FairForever wrote:It's ridiculous. Bush wasn't an amazing president, but he's painted a lot worse than he actually was. I think all of the past presidents in my lifetime have done a fine job.
I concur, Canadians are far too polite to have BDS. As demonstrated by this poster, he is simply unable to voice hurtful words towards that imbecile.
|
On April 20 2012 06:59 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 06:41 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:33 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:25 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:22 Hinanawi wrote:
Voted Obama in 2008, will not be voting in 2012. Well, I will go to vote on the California propositions and such, but I'll probably leave the President section blank, or write in my own name.
Philosophically I'm still closer to Obama than to Romney, but I can't in good conscience vote the 'lesser of two evils' when even the lesser of two evils still set the precedent of trial-less assassinations of US citizens, and continues to make America into Israel's dog, draining our resources and the lives of our soldiers over something that doesn't concern us.
Of course, Romney is just as bad or worse on most of those points, but again, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's so much evil in both. I get this, but the problem is that this kind of attitude brought to the world stage George W Bush. People need to vote democrat. GWB wasn't that bad of a president, I hate it when people spout that bullshit. I think he did a bad job when it came to tax cuts (he should have been going the other way on taxes), but otherwise I don't think it was that bad. I think Obama has done better but both have been good presidents. spout that bullshit? Lets see dumb things that he did: 1) Invaded Iraq by making up lies, setting his lackeys on people who opposed the invasion because...there was no good reason for the invasion. 2) Two tax cuts that helped to accelerate the trend of income inequality, turned a budget surplus into a historic deficit 3) Cut back on financial regulation, setting up the crisis in 07 very nicely while pushing for a 'home ownership' society that pushed more and more people into buying homes. 4) extra judicial torture is a o k! 5) Tried to put his personally lackey on the Supreme Court, a move so egregious even his own party opposed it. 6) Sat on his hands while oil prices went from under 50 dollars a barrel to 168 [and hey why not, his friends in the oil industry appreciated the help!] 7) Sat on his hands while China de-industralized America, watched passively while a historic trade deficit widened further than ever 8) Encouraged Israel to engage in highly aggressive behavior that did nothing for America, well most of America, the defense contractors who got rich obviously appreciate that Israel used up its advanced munitions very rapidly so new orders could be filled 9) No child left behind act. Jerry rigged a system that encourages 0 actual educational improvement but promotes teaching a standardized test 10) Packed the Supreme Court with political justices that have no problem seeing corporations as people but think the healthcare mandate of all things is unconstitutional This is just off the top of my head. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president post WW2, easily. 1) That's an opinion 2) That's an opinion, although most economists agree 3) The bill that deregulated the housing industry was signed by Clinton 4) Obama still agrees, but it's again an opinion 5) That's an opinion, and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle not in the political world thought it was a good idea. 6) That's ridiculous - just like it's ridiculous that Obama gets blamed for high gas prices. 7) That's an opinion. Most economists agree that Free Trade is important. Significant import tariffs will just lead to retaliation from the other country. 8) That's an opinion. Some people (though not me) think that Palestine is the bad guy here. 9) Do you have a better idea? 10) That's an opinion - technically a corporation is a person as per the law. And the health care mandate being unconstitutional is pretty highly likely. Even as a moderate I agree that it probably oversteps the boundaries, although I like the idea of the law.
The thing is, almost everyone agrees that bush was a fucking stupid president (a nice guy, but stupid as hell.) What do you mean #1 is an opinion? No WMD's were EVER found in Iraq, which was one of the biggest "reasons" to go to war.
|
On April 20 2012 07:21 FairForever wrote:It's ridiculous. Bush wasn't an amazing president, but he's painted a lot worse than he actually was. I think all of the past presidents in my lifetime have done a fine job.
I strongly disagree. The main problem I (and many other critics) have with him is IRAQ. He took the country to war based off of very inefficient evidence. The CIA was telling him that they had found no evidence of WMDs but he wouldn't listen. None of us will ever know whether Bush legitimately believed Saddam had WMDs or not, the point is that Bush made an impulsive and irrational decision that ended up costing not only thousands of lives but at least a trillion dollars in unnecessary debt.
And what was accomplished by the Iraq War? Nothing. FAR more Iraqi's have died in the insurgency since 2003 than were ever killed by Saddam or any of his predecessors. Public opinion of the US around the globe has also dropped as a direct result of the Iraq War. We didn't even get any oil out of it.
|
On April 20 2012 07:31 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 06:59 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:41 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:33 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:25 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:22 Hinanawi wrote:
Voted Obama in 2008, will not be voting in 2012. Well, I will go to vote on the California propositions and such, but I'll probably leave the President section blank, or write in my own name.
Philosophically I'm still closer to Obama than to Romney, but I can't in good conscience vote the 'lesser of two evils' when even the lesser of two evils still set the precedent of trial-less assassinations of US citizens, and continues to make America into Israel's dog, draining our resources and the lives of our soldiers over something that doesn't concern us.
Of course, Romney is just as bad or worse on most of those points, but again, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's so much evil in both. I get this, but the problem is that this kind of attitude brought to the world stage George W Bush. People need to vote democrat. GWB wasn't that bad of a president, I hate it when people spout that bullshit. I think he did a bad job when it came to tax cuts (he should have been going the other way on taxes), but otherwise I don't think it was that bad. I think Obama has done better but both have been good presidents. spout that bullshit? Lets see dumb things that he did: 1) Invaded Iraq by making up lies, setting his lackeys on people who opposed the invasion because...there was no good reason for the invasion. 2) Two tax cuts that helped to accelerate the trend of income inequality, turned a budget surplus into a historic deficit 3) Cut back on financial regulation, setting up the crisis in 07 very nicely while pushing for a 'home ownership' society that pushed more and more people into buying homes. 4) extra judicial torture is a o k! 5) Tried to put his personally lackey on the Supreme Court, a move so egregious even his own party opposed it. 6) Sat on his hands while oil prices went from under 50 dollars a barrel to 168 [and hey why not, his friends in the oil industry appreciated the help!] 7) Sat on his hands while China de-industralized America, watched passively while a historic trade deficit widened further than ever 8) Encouraged Israel to engage in highly aggressive behavior that did nothing for America, well most of America, the defense contractors who got rich obviously appreciate that Israel used up its advanced munitions very rapidly so new orders could be filled 9) No child left behind act. Jerry rigged a system that encourages 0 actual educational improvement but promotes teaching a standardized test 10) Packed the Supreme Court with political justices that have no problem seeing corporations as people but think the healthcare mandate of all things is unconstitutional This is just off the top of my head. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president post WW2, easily. 1) That's an opinion 2) That's an opinion, although most economists agree 3) The bill that deregulated the housing industry was signed by Clinton 4) Obama still agrees, but it's again an opinion 5) That's an opinion, and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle not in the political world thought it was a good idea. 6) That's ridiculous - just like it's ridiculous that Obama gets blamed for high gas prices. 7) That's an opinion. Most economists agree that Free Trade is important. Significant import tariffs will just lead to retaliation from the other country. 8) That's an opinion. Some people (though not me) think that Palestine is the bad guy here. 9) Do you have a better idea? 10) That's an opinion - technically a corporation is a person as per the law. And the health care mandate being unconstitutional is pretty highly likely. Even as a moderate I agree that it probably oversteps the boundaries, although I like the idea of the law. The thing is, almost everyone agrees that bush was a fucking stupid president (a nice guy, but stupid as hell.) What do you mean #1 is an opinion? No WMD's were EVER found in Iraq, which was one of the biggest "reasons" to go to war.
Somebody above criticized GWB for having intel on 9-11 and not acting on it. In this case GWB acted on intel on Iraq and it didn't turn out well. If the US had gotten hit with a WMD then you'd blame Bush for that too.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
|
On April 20 2012 07:21 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:12 Defacer wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:41 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:33 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:25 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:22 Hinanawi wrote:
Voted Obama in 2008, will not be voting in 2012. Well, I will go to vote on the California propositions and such, but I'll probably leave the President section blank, or write in my own name.
Philosophically I'm still closer to Obama than to Romney, but I can't in good conscience vote the 'lesser of two evils' when even the lesser of two evils still set the precedent of trial-less assassinations of US citizens, and continues to make America into Israel's dog, draining our resources and the lives of our soldiers over something that doesn't concern us.
Of course, Romney is just as bad or worse on most of those points, but again, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's so much evil in both. I get this, but the problem is that this kind of attitude brought to the world stage George W Bush. People need to vote democrat. GWB wasn't that bad of a president, I hate it when people spout that bullshit. I think he did a bad job when it came to tax cuts (he should have been going the other way on taxes), but otherwise I don't think it was that bad. I think Obama has done better but both have been good presidents. spout that bullshit? Lets see dumb things that he did: 1) Invaded Iraq by making up lies, setting his lackeys on people who opposed the invasion because...there was no good reason for the invasion. 2) Two tax cuts that helped to accelerate the trend of income inequality, turned a budget surplus into a historic deficit 3) Cut back on financial regulation, setting up the crisis in 07 very nicely while pushing for a 'home ownership' society that pushed more and more people into buying homes. 4) extra judicial torture is a o k! 5) Tried to put his personally lackey on the Supreme Court, a move so egregious even his own party opposed it. 6) Sat on his hands while oil prices went from under 50 dollars a barrel to 168 [and hey why not, his friends in the oil industry appreciated the help!] 7) Sat on his hands while China de-industralized America, watched passively while a historic trade deficit widened further than ever 8) Encouraged Israel to engage in highly aggressive behavior that did nothing for America, well most of America, the defense contractors who got rich obviously appreciate that Israel used up its advanced munitions very rapidly so new orders could be filled 9) No child left behind act. Jerry rigged a system that encourages 0 actual educational improvement but promotes teaching a standardized test 10) Packed the Supreme Court with political justices that have no problem seeing corporations as people but think the healthcare mandate of all things is unconstitutional This is just off the top of my head. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president post WW2, easily. 1) That's an opinion 2) That's an opinion, although most economists agree 3) The bill that deregulated the housing industry was signed by Clinton 4) Obama still agrees, but it's again an opinion 5) That's an opinion, and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle not in the political world thought it was a good idea. 6) That's ridiculous - just like it's ridiculous that Obama gets blamed for high gas prices. 7) That's an opinion. Most economists agree that Free Trade is important. Significant import tariffs will just lead to retaliation from the other country. 8) That's an opinion. Some people (though not me) think that Palestine is the bad guy here. 9) Do you have a better idea? 10) That's an opinion - technically a corporation is a person as per the law. And the health care mandate being unconstitutional is pretty highly likely. Even as a moderate I agree that it probably oversteps the boundaries, although I like the idea of the law. 11) Presided during the September 11 attack, despite having intelligence and forewarning of an imminent attack. 12) Bungled Hurricane Katrina. 13) Disbanded the operation to find and kill Osama Bin Laden. 11) Seriously? 12) Thanks for such a great critique 13) Find me a legitimate source.
13) Courtesy the NY Times, July 4 2006
The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.
The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."
The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. [The New York Times, 7/4/06]
Bush: "I am truly not concerned about" Bin Laden, courtesy Reuters
After focusing on bin Laden in the weeks immediately after more than 3,000 people died when hijackers piloted passenger jets into the Pentagon, New York's World Trade Center and a Pennsylvania field, Bush now rarely mentions bin Laden by name.
"I don't know where he is ... deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all," Bush said.
Bush said lately he "hadn't heard much" from bin Laden. In the past, the Islamic dissident the Taliban sheltered in Afghanistan has been seen on tape.
The president dismissed the idea that bin Laden is "at the centre of any command structure."
"I truly am not that concerned about him ... I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban." [Reuters, 3/14/02, accessed via Nexis]
|
On April 20 2012 07:35 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:31 darthfoley wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:41 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:33 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:25 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:22 Hinanawi wrote:
Voted Obama in 2008, will not be voting in 2012. Well, I will go to vote on the California propositions and such, but I'll probably leave the President section blank, or write in my own name.
Philosophically I'm still closer to Obama than to Romney, but I can't in good conscience vote the 'lesser of two evils' when even the lesser of two evils still set the precedent of trial-less assassinations of US citizens, and continues to make America into Israel's dog, draining our resources and the lives of our soldiers over something that doesn't concern us.
Of course, Romney is just as bad or worse on most of those points, but again, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's so much evil in both. I get this, but the problem is that this kind of attitude brought to the world stage George W Bush. People need to vote democrat. GWB wasn't that bad of a president, I hate it when people spout that bullshit. I think he did a bad job when it came to tax cuts (he should have been going the other way on taxes), but otherwise I don't think it was that bad. I think Obama has done better but both have been good presidents. spout that bullshit? Lets see dumb things that he did: 1) Invaded Iraq by making up lies, setting his lackeys on people who opposed the invasion because...there was no good reason for the invasion. 2) Two tax cuts that helped to accelerate the trend of income inequality, turned a budget surplus into a historic deficit 3) Cut back on financial regulation, setting up the crisis in 07 very nicely while pushing for a 'home ownership' society that pushed more and more people into buying homes. 4) extra judicial torture is a o k! 5) Tried to put his personally lackey on the Supreme Court, a move so egregious even his own party opposed it. 6) Sat on his hands while oil prices went from under 50 dollars a barrel to 168 [and hey why not, his friends in the oil industry appreciated the help!] 7) Sat on his hands while China de-industralized America, watched passively while a historic trade deficit widened further than ever 8) Encouraged Israel to engage in highly aggressive behavior that did nothing for America, well most of America, the defense contractors who got rich obviously appreciate that Israel used up its advanced munitions very rapidly so new orders could be filled 9) No child left behind act. Jerry rigged a system that encourages 0 actual educational improvement but promotes teaching a standardized test 10) Packed the Supreme Court with political justices that have no problem seeing corporations as people but think the healthcare mandate of all things is unconstitutional This is just off the top of my head. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president post WW2, easily. 1) That's an opinion 2) That's an opinion, although most economists agree 3) The bill that deregulated the housing industry was signed by Clinton 4) Obama still agrees, but it's again an opinion 5) That's an opinion, and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle not in the political world thought it was a good idea. 6) That's ridiculous - just like it's ridiculous that Obama gets blamed for high gas prices. 7) That's an opinion. Most economists agree that Free Trade is important. Significant import tariffs will just lead to retaliation from the other country. 8) That's an opinion. Some people (though not me) think that Palestine is the bad guy here. 9) Do you have a better idea? 10) That's an opinion - technically a corporation is a person as per the law. And the health care mandate being unconstitutional is pretty highly likely. Even as a moderate I agree that it probably oversteps the boundaries, although I like the idea of the law. The thing is, almost everyone agrees that bush was a fucking stupid president (a nice guy, but stupid as hell.) What do you mean #1 is an opinion? No WMD's were EVER found in Iraq, which was one of the biggest "reasons" to go to war. Somebody above criticized GWB for having intel on 9-11 and not acting on it. In this case GWB acted on intel on Iraq and it didn't turn out well. If the US had gotten hit with a WMD then you'd blame Bush for that too. Hindsight is always 20/20.
He didn't act on intel when he decided to invade Iraq. He acted on hunches. All of the intel he received was pointing to Iraq not having any WMDs.
Also, I don't blame Bush entirely for 9/11. The FBI/CIA are much more to blame. Bush had only been in office 9 months, it's not like he could have reworked the entire Department of Defense within that time. Had the FBI/CIA/other agencies been actually communicating with each other, they probably could have thwarted it.
|
On April 20 2012 07:31 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:21 FairForever wrote:It's ridiculous. Bush wasn't an amazing president, but he's painted a lot worse than he actually was. I think all of the past presidents in my lifetime have done a fine job. I strongly disagree. The main problem I (and many other critics) have with him is IRAQ. He took the country to war based off of very inefficient evidence. The CIA was telling him that they had found no evidence of WMDs but he wouldn't listen. None of us will ever know whether Bush legitimately believed Saddam had WMDs or not, the point is that Bush made an impulsive and irrational decision that ended up costing not only thousands of lives but at least a trillion dollars in unnecessary debt. And what was accomplished by the Iraq War? Nothing. FAR more Iraqi's have died in the insurgency since 2003 than were ever killed by Saddam or any of his predecessors. Public opinion of the US around the globe has also dropped as a direct result of the Iraq War. We didn't even get any oil out of it.
IMO Bush made no decision, like Obama doesn't make any either. They have counselors.
|
On April 20 2012 02:35 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:23 liberal wrote:
[quote]
This is a moot point though. If I get a credit card and buy new furniture, is my situation better? Of course it is, I have more stuff, I'm more comfortable. When the bill comes in the mail, will I be worse off? Of course, I have less money.
The real question is, "On the whole over time are we experiencing a net benefit or a net loss?" And the answer to that question is predicated on something few people truly grasp: Opportunity cost. The notion of opportunity cost is a microeconomics concept not a macroeconomic concept. If your point is comparing what would happen without the stimulus to what happened with the stimulus, than things are better because stimulus in recessions have fiscal multipliers. See for example: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdfFurthermore, we have another baseline for fiscal austerity: Europe and the 20% unemployment rate in Spain and Greece. wrong. opportunity cost is just the same at the macroscopic level. and the opportunity cost is all the WASTE of government they have created with their BS spending schemes. All the scarce resources that have been wasted there. Government spending will ALWAYS, i repeat ALWAYS, by its definition, be wasteful. It is because it is not based on profit and loss, but taxation and spending. No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows. Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the productive economic activities. Stimulus puts these people to work thereby reducing the waste associated with unused human capital. Scarcity doesn't apply when there is high unemployment, i.e. people doing nothing, waiting for and wanting to work. And you have not shown how government spending is by definition wasteful. You've declared as if you were an armchair economist delivering a sermon on economic truth passed on by god. Government spending is by definition the government spending it's money, nowhere in this definition is the concept of wasteful invoked. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful. as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this! That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people. So what if it includes inflation? Have you heard of real GDP and nominal GDP? Economists can look at both real GDP (doesn't include inflation) and nominal GDP (does). And products are what people want. I use money to buy products, I value food, computers, beds, chairs, video games, etc. GDP measures production. And I've completely debunked your nonsense about profit and loss to the point you haven't even brought it up.
Woah, woah, careful with your language there. GDP measures the final value of goods AND services. As you know it doesn't include stuff like selling used cars. You're right, but clarification is always necessary to those without econ-speak.
|
On April 20 2012 07:38 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:35 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 07:31 darthfoley wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:41 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:33 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:25 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:22 Hinanawi wrote:
Voted Obama in 2008, will not be voting in 2012. Well, I will go to vote on the California propositions and such, but I'll probably leave the President section blank, or write in my own name.
Philosophically I'm still closer to Obama than to Romney, but I can't in good conscience vote the 'lesser of two evils' when even the lesser of two evils still set the precedent of trial-less assassinations of US citizens, and continues to make America into Israel's dog, draining our resources and the lives of our soldiers over something that doesn't concern us.
Of course, Romney is just as bad or worse on most of those points, but again, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's so much evil in both. I get this, but the problem is that this kind of attitude brought to the world stage George W Bush. People need to vote democrat. GWB wasn't that bad of a president, I hate it when people spout that bullshit. I think he did a bad job when it came to tax cuts (he should have been going the other way on taxes), but otherwise I don't think it was that bad. I think Obama has done better but both have been good presidents. spout that bullshit? Lets see dumb things that he did: 1) Invaded Iraq by making up lies, setting his lackeys on people who opposed the invasion because...there was no good reason for the invasion. 2) Two tax cuts that helped to accelerate the trend of income inequality, turned a budget surplus into a historic deficit 3) Cut back on financial regulation, setting up the crisis in 07 very nicely while pushing for a 'home ownership' society that pushed more and more people into buying homes. 4) extra judicial torture is a o k! 5) Tried to put his personally lackey on the Supreme Court, a move so egregious even his own party opposed it. 6) Sat on his hands while oil prices went from under 50 dollars a barrel to 168 [and hey why not, his friends in the oil industry appreciated the help!] 7) Sat on his hands while China de-industralized America, watched passively while a historic trade deficit widened further than ever 8) Encouraged Israel to engage in highly aggressive behavior that did nothing for America, well most of America, the defense contractors who got rich obviously appreciate that Israel used up its advanced munitions very rapidly so new orders could be filled 9) No child left behind act. Jerry rigged a system that encourages 0 actual educational improvement but promotes teaching a standardized test 10) Packed the Supreme Court with political justices that have no problem seeing corporations as people but think the healthcare mandate of all things is unconstitutional This is just off the top of my head. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president post WW2, easily. 1) That's an opinion 2) That's an opinion, although most economists agree 3) The bill that deregulated the housing industry was signed by Clinton 4) Obama still agrees, but it's again an opinion 5) That's an opinion, and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle not in the political world thought it was a good idea. 6) That's ridiculous - just like it's ridiculous that Obama gets blamed for high gas prices. 7) That's an opinion. Most economists agree that Free Trade is important. Significant import tariffs will just lead to retaliation from the other country. 8) That's an opinion. Some people (though not me) think that Palestine is the bad guy here. 9) Do you have a better idea? 10) That's an opinion - technically a corporation is a person as per the law. And the health care mandate being unconstitutional is pretty highly likely. Even as a moderate I agree that it probably oversteps the boundaries, although I like the idea of the law. The thing is, almost everyone agrees that bush was a fucking stupid president (a nice guy, but stupid as hell.) What do you mean #1 is an opinion? No WMD's were EVER found in Iraq, which was one of the biggest "reasons" to go to war. Somebody above criticized GWB for having intel on 9-11 and not acting on it. In this case GWB acted on intel on Iraq and it didn't turn out well. If the US had gotten hit with a WMD then you'd blame Bush for that too. Hindsight is always 20/20. He didn't act on intel when he decided to invade Iraq. He acted on hunches. All of the intel he received was pointing to Iraq not having any WMDs. Also, I don't blame Bush entirely for 9/11. The FBI/CIA are much more to blame. Bush had only been in office 9 months, it's not like he could have reworked the entire Department of Defense within that time. Had the FBI/CIA/other agencies been actually communicating with each other, they probably could have thwarted it.
Seriously, stop with the revisionist history. George Bush didn't act on bad intel, the intel was invented as a pretext for a war that was going to be waged regardless. The fact it turned out false simply shows incompetence by TPTB. Even if WMD existed, the war would have been immoral and illegal.
I'm so sick of people complaining about how Bush lied: it was obvious to any intelligent person that he was lying, in fact, the entirety of the Western world knew this (not to mention people in the Middle-East etc.). Also, it lets people off the hook, they can nowadays simply tell that they were lied into a war by Bush when they really had plenty of reasons to doubt him and even if the WMD existed, it wouldn't have been enough to go into war regardless, so it was still an evil decision. (and of course WMD or whatever had nothing to do with the reasoning behind the war - neither had 9/11 for that matter)
|
On April 20 2012 07:38 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:31 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:21 FairForever wrote:It's ridiculous. Bush wasn't an amazing president, but he's painted a lot worse than he actually was. I think all of the past presidents in my lifetime have done a fine job. I strongly disagree. The main problem I (and many other critics) have with him is IRAQ. He took the country to war based off of very inefficient evidence. The CIA was telling him that they had found no evidence of WMDs but he wouldn't listen. None of us will ever know whether Bush legitimately believed Saddam had WMDs or not, the point is that Bush made an impulsive and irrational decision that ended up costing not only thousands of lives but at least a trillion dollars in unnecessary debt. And what was accomplished by the Iraq War? Nothing. FAR more Iraqi's have died in the insurgency since 2003 than were ever killed by Saddam or any of his predecessors. Public opinion of the US around the globe has also dropped as a direct result of the Iraq War. We didn't even get any oil out of it. IMO Bush made no decision, like Obama doesn't make any either. They have counselors.
When you study politics and presidents, you realize there are two types of presidents in this regards, those that rely on their advisors and those that don't. The most famous that refused to use advisors was probably Lincoln (they advised him against war), and the most recent that heavily used them was Reagan (which shines if you read Age of Turbulence). Don't be so quick to place decisions on advisors.
|
On April 20 2012 02:39 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:23 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:23 liberal wrote:On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable. This is a moot point though. If I get a credit card and buy new furniture, is my situation better? Of course it is, I have more stuff, I'm more comfortable. When the bill comes in the mail, will I be worse off? Of course, I have less money. The real question is, "On the whole over time are we experiencing a net benefit or a net loss?" And the answer to that question is predicated on something few people truly grasp: Opportunity cost. The notion of opportunity cost is a microeconomics concept not a macroeconomic concept. If your point is comparing what would happen without the stimulus to what happened with the stimulus, than things are better because stimulus in recessions have fiscal multipliers. See for example: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdfFurthermore, we have another baseline for fiscal austerity: Europe and the 20% unemployment rate in Spain and Greece. wrong. opportunity cost is just the same at the macroscopic level. and the opportunity cost is all the WASTE of government they have created with their BS spending schemes. All the scarce resources that have been wasted there. Government spending will ALWAYS, i repeat ALWAYS, by its definition, be wasteful. It is because it is not based on profit and loss, but taxation and spending. No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows. Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the productive economic activities. Stimulus puts these people to work thereby reducing the waste associated with unused human capital. Scarcity doesn't apply when there is high unemployment, i.e. people doing nothing, waiting for and wanting to work. And you have not shown how government spending is by definition wasteful. You've declared as if you were an armchair economist delivering a sermon on economic truth passed on by god. Government spending is by definition the government spending it's money, nowhere in this definition is the concept of wasteful invoked. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful. as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. By your argument, the government putting people to work when 10% of the labor force was doing nothing economically productive is a waste. This is completely absurd. Doing nothing is a waste. Doing something because the government has put you in a job is not. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. Well, the problem is you assume they are doing something useful. Simply putting people back to work isn't necessarily, as they may not produce any/much value to society. That is unless you're asking Joseph Stiglitz, who is on tape saying stimilus is good even if it's about digging a hole and filling it back in. That argument just boggles my mind. So, was the stimilus useful in the sense that it created value? That's where we didn't have profit/loss mechanism to answer the question. And CBAs for the projects were hardly made. Stimilus isn't a free lunch and it's possible it helpsed the distortions which put our economy in the recession in the first place, not allowing it to adjust the misallocated capital. I know Christina Romer is a very well respected economist so I will read the paper with great interest when I get the time, but I will refrain from making conclusions based on that one paper alone. In a recession (only in a recession), having people digging a hole and filling it back in is better than doing nothing, because it at least gives them income which they spend, which increases aggregate demand. Of course productive work is better than not very productive work. But in a recession, not very productive work is better than nothing at all. Your argument about misallocation of capital, i.e structural unemployment has been debunked many times. Here's Ben Bernanke debunking it again last month: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120326a.htm
First paragraph, there's no concensus among economists saying that, I would argue rather the opposite.
Second paragraph, still no concensus, but a majority.
Third paragraph, as you can see I was throwing it out as a possibility, I didn't argue it to necessarily be the case. It's possible it's not, but I wouldn't take Ben "there's no housing bubble" Bernanke's analysis as an absolute truth.
|
On April 20 2012 07:42 Etrnity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:38 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 07:31 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:21 FairForever wrote:It's ridiculous. Bush wasn't an amazing president, but he's painted a lot worse than he actually was. I think all of the past presidents in my lifetime have done a fine job. I strongly disagree. The main problem I (and many other critics) have with him is IRAQ. He took the country to war based off of very inefficient evidence. The CIA was telling him that they had found no evidence of WMDs but he wouldn't listen. None of us will ever know whether Bush legitimately believed Saddam had WMDs or not, the point is that Bush made an impulsive and irrational decision that ended up costing not only thousands of lives but at least a trillion dollars in unnecessary debt. And what was accomplished by the Iraq War? Nothing. FAR more Iraqi's have died in the insurgency since 2003 than were ever killed by Saddam or any of his predecessors. Public opinion of the US around the globe has also dropped as a direct result of the Iraq War. We didn't even get any oil out of it. IMO Bush made no decision, like Obama doesn't make any either. They have counselors. When you study politics and presidents, you realize there are two types of presidents in this regards, those that rely on their advisors and those that don't. The most famous that refused to use advisors was probably Lincoln (they advised him against war), and the most recent that heavily used them was Reagan (which shines if you read Age of Turbulence). Don't be so quick to place decisions on advisors.
That's old school, when Presidents were visionary (Churchill, Lincoln, De Gaulle etc). We don't have this type of President anymore. I think Americans know very well that Presidents are representatives (Obama is great at that for instance), otherwise it would be scary if they chose to vote Bush to lead the country.
|
On April 20 2012 07:41 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:38 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:35 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 07:31 darthfoley wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:41 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:33 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:25 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:22 Hinanawi wrote:
Voted Obama in 2008, will not be voting in 2012. Well, I will go to vote on the California propositions and such, but I'll probably leave the President section blank, or write in my own name.
Philosophically I'm still closer to Obama than to Romney, but I can't in good conscience vote the 'lesser of two evils' when even the lesser of two evils still set the precedent of trial-less assassinations of US citizens, and continues to make America into Israel's dog, draining our resources and the lives of our soldiers over something that doesn't concern us.
Of course, Romney is just as bad or worse on most of those points, but again, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's so much evil in both. I get this, but the problem is that this kind of attitude brought to the world stage George W Bush. People need to vote democrat. GWB wasn't that bad of a president, I hate it when people spout that bullshit. I think he did a bad job when it came to tax cuts (he should have been going the other way on taxes), but otherwise I don't think it was that bad. I think Obama has done better but both have been good presidents. spout that bullshit? Lets see dumb things that he did: 1) Invaded Iraq by making up lies, setting his lackeys on people who opposed the invasion because...there was no good reason for the invasion. 2) Two tax cuts that helped to accelerate the trend of income inequality, turned a budget surplus into a historic deficit 3) Cut back on financial regulation, setting up the crisis in 07 very nicely while pushing for a 'home ownership' society that pushed more and more people into buying homes. 4) extra judicial torture is a o k! 5) Tried to put his personally lackey on the Supreme Court, a move so egregious even his own party opposed it. 6) Sat on his hands while oil prices went from under 50 dollars a barrel to 168 [and hey why not, his friends in the oil industry appreciated the help!] 7) Sat on his hands while China de-industralized America, watched passively while a historic trade deficit widened further than ever 8) Encouraged Israel to engage in highly aggressive behavior that did nothing for America, well most of America, the defense contractors who got rich obviously appreciate that Israel used up its advanced munitions very rapidly so new orders could be filled 9) No child left behind act. Jerry rigged a system that encourages 0 actual educational improvement but promotes teaching a standardized test 10) Packed the Supreme Court with political justices that have no problem seeing corporations as people but think the healthcare mandate of all things is unconstitutional This is just off the top of my head. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president post WW2, easily. 1) That's an opinion 2) That's an opinion, although most economists agree 3) The bill that deregulated the housing industry was signed by Clinton 4) Obama still agrees, but it's again an opinion 5) That's an opinion, and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle not in the political world thought it was a good idea. 6) That's ridiculous - just like it's ridiculous that Obama gets blamed for high gas prices. 7) That's an opinion. Most economists agree that Free Trade is important. Significant import tariffs will just lead to retaliation from the other country. 8) That's an opinion. Some people (though not me) think that Palestine is the bad guy here. 9) Do you have a better idea? 10) That's an opinion - technically a corporation is a person as per the law. And the health care mandate being unconstitutional is pretty highly likely. Even as a moderate I agree that it probably oversteps the boundaries, although I like the idea of the law. The thing is, almost everyone agrees that bush was a fucking stupid president (a nice guy, but stupid as hell.) What do you mean #1 is an opinion? No WMD's were EVER found in Iraq, which was one of the biggest "reasons" to go to war. Somebody above criticized GWB for having intel on 9-11 and not acting on it. In this case GWB acted on intel on Iraq and it didn't turn out well. If the US had gotten hit with a WMD then you'd blame Bush for that too. Hindsight is always 20/20. He didn't act on intel when he decided to invade Iraq. He acted on hunches. All of the intel he received was pointing to Iraq not having any WMDs. Also, I don't blame Bush entirely for 9/11. The FBI/CIA are much more to blame. Bush had only been in office 9 months, it's not like he could have reworked the entire Department of Defense within that time. Had the FBI/CIA/other agencies been actually communicating with each other, they probably could have thwarted it. Seriously, stop with the revisionist history. George Bush didn't act on bad intel, the intel was invented as a pretext for a war that was going to be waged regardless. The fact it turned out false simply shows incompetence by TPTB. Even if WMD existed, the war would have been immoral and illegal. I'm so sick of people complaining about how Bush lied: first of all it was obvious to any intelligent person that he was lying, in fact, the entirety of the Western world knew this. Second, it lets people off the hook, they can nowadays simply tell that they were lied into a war by Bush when they had plenty of reasons to doubt him and even if the WMD existed, it wouldn't have been enough to go into war regardless, so it was still an evil decision. (and of course WMD or whatever had nothing to do with the reasoning behind the war - neither had 9/11 for that matter)
Reread my post. I specifically stated that Bush acted on NO intel when he decided to invade Iraq. Earlier, I said that arguing over whether or not Bush was lying or was actually dumb enough to believe Iraq was a threat is pointless. Either way, he made a terrible decision, and I blame him for it completely.
|
Sorry, meant to quote the post you responded to.
|
Dear America,
I see you have once again forgotten your only hope at survival, Ron Paul
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world.
|
On April 20 2012 07:47 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:42 Etrnity wrote:On April 20 2012 07:38 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 07:31 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 07:21 FairForever wrote:It's ridiculous. Bush wasn't an amazing president, but he's painted a lot worse than he actually was. I think all of the past presidents in my lifetime have done a fine job. I strongly disagree. The main problem I (and many other critics) have with him is IRAQ. He took the country to war based off of very inefficient evidence. The CIA was telling him that they had found no evidence of WMDs but he wouldn't listen. None of us will ever know whether Bush legitimately believed Saddam had WMDs or not, the point is that Bush made an impulsive and irrational decision that ended up costing not only thousands of lives but at least a trillion dollars in unnecessary debt. And what was accomplished by the Iraq War? Nothing. FAR more Iraqi's have died in the insurgency since 2003 than were ever killed by Saddam or any of his predecessors. Public opinion of the US around the globe has also dropped as a direct result of the Iraq War. We didn't even get any oil out of it. IMO Bush made no decision, like Obama doesn't make any either. They have counselors. When you study politics and presidents, you realize there are two types of presidents in this regards, those that rely on their advisors and those that don't. The most famous that refused to use advisors was probably Lincoln (they advised him against war), and the most recent that heavily used them was Reagan (which shines if you read Age of Turbulence). Don't be so quick to place decisions on advisors. That's old school, when Presidents were visionary (Churchill, Lincoln, De Gaulle etc). We don't have this type of President anymore. I think Americans know very well that Presidents are representatives (Obama is great at that for instance), otherwise it would be scary if they chose to vote Bush to lead the country.
Right, the trend has been to rely on more advisors, and with the amount of information that floods our system these days, this is to be expected. There is a point to this, though, and that is that a president can act without the use of his advisors. There is nothing that forces him to do so. But I do see presidents these days as just a medium and a voice, and Obama does have a great speaking voice even if I disagree with some of the policies he backs.
|
On April 20 2012 06:59 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 06:41 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:33 FairForever wrote:On April 20 2012 06:25 Sub40APM wrote:On April 20 2012 06:22 Hinanawi wrote:
Voted Obama in 2008, will not be voting in 2012. Well, I will go to vote on the California propositions and such, but I'll probably leave the President section blank, or write in my own name.
Philosophically I'm still closer to Obama than to Romney, but I can't in good conscience vote the 'lesser of two evils' when even the lesser of two evils still set the precedent of trial-less assassinations of US citizens, and continues to make America into Israel's dog, draining our resources and the lives of our soldiers over something that doesn't concern us.
Of course, Romney is just as bad or worse on most of those points, but again, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's so much evil in both. I get this, but the problem is that this kind of attitude brought to the world stage George W Bush. People need to vote democrat. GWB wasn't that bad of a president, I hate it when people spout that bullshit. I think he did a bad job when it came to tax cuts (he should have been going the other way on taxes), but otherwise I don't think it was that bad. I think Obama has done better but both have been good presidents. spout that bullshit? Lets see dumb things that he did: 1) Invaded Iraq by making up lies, setting his lackeys on people who opposed the invasion because...there was no good reason for the invasion. 2) Two tax cuts that helped to accelerate the trend of income inequality, turned a budget surplus into a historic deficit 3) Cut back on financial regulation, setting up the crisis in 07 very nicely while pushing for a 'home ownership' society that pushed more and more people into buying homes. 4) extra judicial torture is a o k! 5) Tried to put his personally lackey on the Supreme Court, a move so egregious even his own party opposed it. 6) Sat on his hands while oil prices went from under 50 dollars a barrel to 168 [and hey why not, his friends in the oil industry appreciated the help!] 7) Sat on his hands while China de-industralized America, watched passively while a historic trade deficit widened further than ever 8) Encouraged Israel to engage in highly aggressive behavior that did nothing for America, well most of America, the defense contractors who got rich obviously appreciate that Israel used up its advanced munitions very rapidly so new orders could be filled 9) No child left behind act. Jerry rigged a system that encourages 0 actual educational improvement but promotes teaching a standardized test 10) Packed the Supreme Court with political justices that have no problem seeing corporations as people but think the healthcare mandate of all things is unconstitutional This is just off the top of my head. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president post WW2, easily. 1) That's an opinion 2) That's an opinion, although most economists agree 3) The bill that deregulated the housing industry was signed by Clinton 4) Obama still agrees, but it's again an opinion 5) That's an opinion, and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle not in the political world thought it was a good idea. 6) That's ridiculous - just like it's ridiculous that Obama gets blamed for high gas prices. 7) That's an opinion. Most economists agree that Free Trade is important. Significant import tariffs will just lead to retaliation from the other country. 8) That's an opinion. Some people (though not me) think that Palestine is the bad guy here. 9) Do you have a better idea? 10) That's an opinion - technically a corporation is a person as per the law. And the health care mandate being unconstitutional is pretty highly likely. Even as a moderate I agree that it probably oversteps the boundaries, although I like the idea of the law.
Let me get this straight. A guy states his opinion. You get outraged and state you opinion. The guy clarify his opinion. You say it's just his opinion. Awesome.
|
On April 20 2012 07:50 BionicWaffle wrote:
Dear America,
I see you have once again forgotten your only hope at survival, Ron Paul
Sincerely,
Me.
User was warned for this post
edit: It wasn't just a blank quote. I actually changed the quote as a response to the quote, but I guess that's just a very lazy way of responding and might make a lot of people misread/misunderstand which is my fault.
edit2: "fixed"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
