United States Heading towards a Depression?

Let's hope not. That would be very bad.

 

Or rather: Let's prepare for the worst.

 

Ah.

You never read the links, did you? Or you did, and now you are deperately trying to ignore the facts.

The Oil-for-Food scandal. Remember? It was in all the papers? Saddam doing business with France, Russia, and China and shovelling the money towards terrorist? The most massive scandal in the history of history? Were you asleep or in a coma when that news broke?

Seriously, the Oil-for-Food scandal was news so massive that the sheer tonnage could stun a team of oxen in it's tracks.

Now, go put your head back into the sand. gworld, you are obviously one of those people that don't care how many people Saddam killed, are you? You think he should have stayed in power - right?

Shame on you for being so cold.

You've just reached a new low in bullshit. You're just a mindless tool of the left. You tool.

 

The only confirmed and official beneficiary of oil for food scandal was Dick Cheney and his friends in different companies, if you say Cheney is a terrorist, I can agree with you.

 

Your bias betrays your ignorance.

You really don't care how many people Saddam murdered, do you?

 

The above are selected secs. - not full article: The election of Brown (Mass.) though bad for Democratic appointments may be the best thing for legislation - forcing everyone to express their opinions and the Democrats needing just one Republican vote for their side to win over a filibuster.

For anyone with a grade school education it is obvious Reid beat out the Fat Cats - Republicans on this one issue so far and how this plays out may be the best chance the Democrats have of regaining the momentum and for the liberals to insure fairness and positive legislation that is lacking so far by both political parties.....all hail the Liberals.

 

I didn't make money from Saddam, Dick Cheney, Bush and their friends did. Don't forget people who Saddam killed be it Iranian soldiers or Kurds were murdered by weapons and intelligence provided by Rumsfeld and Bush senior.

 

That's like a drunk who keeps drinking to avoid a hangover.

And the vast majority of jobs which were "saved" were government jobs, which represent a continuing drain on the economy.

In other words, the stimulus enabled the government to avoid slimming down to more reasonable proportions.

I think it's safe to say that we're already in the depression, it's just not official yet.

If I could predict exactly when hyperinflation will begin, I'd be even richer than I already am.

Buying gold seems too much like speculation and too little like investment. Gold doesn't produce anything. It can appreciate, but it can't really create wealth.

I believe that U.S. real estate has another 25% (or possibly 50%) to fall before achieving a level of relative stability.

Far worse... so far... it's coming.

5,000 is always possible, but I don't think we'll hit it because hyperinflation will happen first. The market will go to 20,000 -- but that 20,000 won't be worth much.

And if not, they will get bailed out by their friends in the government.

I'd recommend taking a hard look at foreign stocks.

There are quite a few countries which have their finances more professionally managed than the United States at this point.

 

You say that as if it's a rock solid fact. It is still pure speculation, and based on one beneficiary having a connection to a wealthy man believed to help finance terrorism (though he is to this day not wanted for anything).

Nobody is going to dispute that the program was abused by Saddam awarding oil contracts based on who was willing to kick back the most money, but there is no evidence at all that any of the money went to terrorists.

 

Money partly ended up in Dick Cheney's pocket, so that at least partially proves that Saddam supported a terrorist.

 

Proof? Where you your proof? Can you prove this?

 

If Julian says so, it must be true.

 

ic and this administration ended the war?

 

Still waiting on the solid, unbiased proof from gworld.

 

Do you even read the posts before posting your nonsense? The link was provided about two page before.

 

There is no public evidence of Haliburton or the Bush family being involved in the oil for food scandal in terms of the bribes. Bush blocked the full list of companies involved from being made public.

Paul Volcker (of the Volcker Committee that investigated the incident) stopped just shy of fingering Bush and/or Cheney when he stated that there were problems with the executive branch of the US government and that they were not cooperating with the investigation. Maybe people read into that statement too much, or maybe not.

A portion of the companies that bribed Saddam are known and they include US companies. There are also a number of companies that were set up under trusts and immediately received oil contracts from Saddam. Newspapers were unable to find out who owns them. Obviously it's people who need to hide their names.

As for Cheney profiting off of the scandal, Haliburton was doing business with Iraq. Saddam needed to repair his equipment to meet the demand of the oil for food contracts, and Haliburton was right there to do it. The US government blocked some of the dealings, but Haliburton just sent the business to their foreign subsidiaries and affiliates.

 

Let me know when this happens too:

 

Yeah, gworld posted that poorly-cited blog-like website again. Sucks to be him in this thread.

You're right again, Mia.

And, nice analysis, DubDub. But just remember - it was the Democratic Congress under Bush I, and that same Congress with President Clinton's first two years in office, that elevated Haliburton to that position anyway. An extremist like gworld will never admit that it wasn't the Republicans that made Haliburton, it was absolutely the Democrats all along.

And yes, people read too much into Paul Volcker comment of "there were problems with the executive branch of the US government and that they were not cooperating with the investigation". It is always possible at any time in a political investigation that an investigator can ask for something that they know they are not legally entitled to and has little bearing on the investigation. The reason they can ask these things is so that they can justify making a PR statement that the executive is not cooperating. If I remember correctly, Volcker asked for the personal notes of certain Presidential advisers, something that even a first-year law student knows is completely out-of-bounds. I think Ken Star tried the same trick with Clinton.

 

Back at the Ranch: The conservatives who still have Chaney to thank for his impeccable reticence from profiting on behest of the corporate sponsors for his and Bushes election can be equally consoled that soon our contribution for the removal of Saddam will be equally rewarded.

 

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???

Can anyone please decode that rambling for me, please?