National Debt

S

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Where did i ever say it was?

The benefits of being a creditor nation v a debtor nation should be relatively obvious, not to mention all the other factors in a macroeconomic sense.
 
DOGS THAT BARK

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,542
230
63
Bowling Green Ky
ssd said:
Where did i ever say it was?

The benefits of being a creditor nation v a debtor nation should be relatively obvious, not to mention all the other factors in a macroeconomic sense.
Click to expand...

You got to understand Muffins and his base could care less about debt-taxes-employment-home foreclosures etc--

As long as their daddy increases those home subsidies-food stamps-welfare etc its :00hour
--"happy days are here again."

wonder which is sucking harder on that tit--uncle omar or aunt muffins --

--and while on subject of home foreclosures--

Foreclosures soar 200% in August...


---buuut I'm sure Daily Kos can conjure up graph for Muffy on diif stats for 3rd of day of months beginning with letter J. :lol:
 
S

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Muff, do your own due diligence. If you disagree, then post as to why?

I'm not going to spoonfeed you - I have better things to do with my time.

The benefits should be apparent. If they are not (to you), then do your google searching and figure it out.
 
Duff Miver

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
ssd said:
Muff, do your own due diligence. If you disagree, then post as to why?

I'm not going to spoonfeed you - I have better things to do with my time.

The benefits should be apparent. If they are not (to you), then do your google searching and figure it out.
Click to expand...

Translation: I just pulled that out of my ass and have no idea whether there's any truth to it.
 
S

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Sure, Muffins.

99% of America has never even heard of creditor nation v debtor nation.

But I decided to pull it out of my ass.

While you are goggling it, look at capital flows as well.

Barking up the wrong tree here.
 
S

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
What is obvious is you have no clue and are trying to hide your ignorance with baited questions.

Add something to the discussion or shut up.
 
StevieD

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
73
Boston
You Republican guys do realize the country is not a business and it is not your personal budget either. In fact, the country is the exact opposite of a business. That is why all these business rules you champion do not work.
 
Duff Miver

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
StevieD said:
You Republican guys do realize the country is not a business and it is not your personal budget either. In fact, the country is the exact opposite of a business. That is why all these business rules you champion do not work.
Click to expand...

Good point, Stevie. :0074 Indeed the aims of government are often quite different from business. Government operates for the benefit of all citizens. Business operates for the benefit of it's relatively few shareholders, fuck anybody else, and especially fuck those who might increase business cost, or reduce business profits by a penny, regardless of the benefit to the health and well-being of others.

Here's a nice example of how business operates, the Ford Pinto:

I've given it the title-

BURN, BABY, BURN...KACHING!!!!

It was the late 60s, when the demand for sub-compacts was rising on the market. Iacocca's
specifications for the design of the car were uncompromising:

"The Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000."

During design and production, however, crash tests revealed a serious defect in the gas tank. In crashes over 25 miles per hour, the gas tank always ruptured. To correct it would have required changing and strengthening the design.

Many studies of reports and documents done by Mother Jones on rear-end collisions involving Pintos reveal that if you ran into that Pinto you were following at over 30 miles per hour, the rear end of the car would buckle like an accordion, right up to the back seat. The tube leading to the gas-tank cap would be ripped away from the tank itself, and gas would immediately begin sloshing onto the road around the car. The buckled gas tank would be jammed up against the differential housing (that big bulge in the middle of your rear axle), which contains four sharp, protruding bolts likely to gash holes in the tank and spill still more gas. Now all you need is a spark from a cigarette, ignition, or scraping metal, and both cars would be engulfed in flames. If you gave that Pinto a really good whack?say, at 40 mph - chances are excellent that its doors would jam and you would have to stand by and watch its trapped passengers burn to death.

In pre-production planning, engineers seriously considered using in the Pinto the same kind of gas tank Ford uses in the Capri. The Capri tank rides over the rear axle and differential housing. It has been so successful in over 50 crash tests that Ford used it in its Experimental Safety Vehicle, which withstood rear-end impacts of 60 mph. So why wasn't the Capri tank used in the Pinto? Or, why wasn't that plastic baffle placed between the tank and the axle - something that would have saved the life's hundreds of people.

President Semon "Bunky" Knudsen, whom Henry Ford II had hired away from General Motors, and Lee Iacocca, a spunky Young Turk who had risen fast within the company on the enormous success of the Mustang. Iacocca saying was that the Japanese were going to capture the entire American subcompact market unless Ford put out its own alternative to the VW Beetle. Bunky Knudsen said let them have the small-car market, but he lost the battle and later resigned. Iacocca became president and almost immediately began a rush program to produce the Pinto.

Lee Iococca wanted that little car in the showrooms of America with the 1971 models. So he ordered his engineering vice president, Bob Alexander, to oversee what was probably the shortest production planning period in modern automotive history. The normal time span from conception to production of a new car model is about 43 months. The Pinto schedule was set at just under 25.

When it was discovered the gas tank was unsafe, did anyone go to Iacocca and tell him? "Hell no," replied an engineer who worked on the Pinto, a high company official for many years, who, unlike several others at Ford, maintains a necessarily clandestine concern for safety. "That person would have been fired. Safety wasn't a popular subject around Ford in those days. Whenever a problem was raised that meant a delay on the Pinto, Lee would chomp on his cigar, look out the window and say 'Read the product objectives and get back to work."

The product objectives are clearly stated in the Pinto "green book." This is a thick, top-secret manual in green covers containing a step-by-step production plan for the model, detailing the metallurgy, weight, strength and quality of every part in the car. The product objectives for the Pinto are repeated in an article by Ford executive F.G. Olsen published by the Society of Automotive Engineers. He lists these product objectives as follows:




TRUE SUBCOMPACT
Size
Weight

LOW COST OF OWNERSHIP
Initial price
Fuel consumption
Reliability
Serviceability

CLEAR PRODUCT SUPERIORITY
Appearance
Comfort
Features
Ride and Handling
Performance

Safety, you will notice, is not there. It is not mentioned in the entire article. As Lee Iacocca was fond of saying, "Safety doesn't sell."

According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Bet on MyBookie
Top