Obama approval rating dropping like a stone

[Jamaicanman]

I think times are different, so how we dealt with China in the past, and modern-day don't even compare. Again, if going by the numbers and per capita, Cinda, number 80, so they would have an agrument correct?

And to say we can do anything w/o China is crazy imo. Again, I will ask you; what do you do when they finance us? They are our bank, so we would either default or coddle.

How do we need them "more" then they need us? Their economy could go on imo w/o the purchasing power of the US longer and easier then we could go on w/o their money.

[KazDog]

I think times are different, so how we dealt with China in the past, and modern-day don't even compare. Again, if going by the numbers and per capita, Cinda, number 80, so they would have an agrument correct?

And to say we can do anything w/o China is crazy imo. Again, I will ask you; what do you do when they finance us? They are our bank, so we would either default or coddle.

How do we need them "more" then they need us? Their economy could go on imo w/o the purchasing power of the US longer and easier then we could go on w/o their money.

First of all. It's foolish to talk about dealing without China. It probably would never happen. But if it does, I would say that this country could survive without them a hell of a lot more than they could without us. The majority of their populous is barely living on what we buy from them. Without us, that money is gone and so is their ability to survive. Average income levels and upper wealth in this country could far outlast their countries needs. We export food. They don't.

Not sure what you're referring to with "Cinda, number 80".


KAZ

[Jamaicanman]

First of all. It's foolish to talk about dealing without China. It probably would never happen. But if it does, I would say that this country could survive without them a hell of a lot more than they could without us. The majority of their populous is barely living on what we buy from them. Without us, that money is gone and so is their ability to survive. Average income levels and upper wealth in this country could far outlast their countries needs. We export food. They don't.

Not sure what you're referring to with "Cinda, number 80".


KAZ

China (Cinda wa typo) is number 80 on the emissions list per capita.

Our government couldn't run w/o China, not average income levels and upper wealth. Who finances our government and deficits? You tell me we survuve if the credit card is cut up? No way.

[KazDog]

China (Cinda wa typo) is number 80 on the emissions list per capita.

Our government couldn't run w/o China, not average income levels and upper wealth. Who finances our government and deficits? You tell me we survuve if the credit card is cut up? No way.

I'm not the one speaking about per capita. That's some of the talk of the summit. Go write your congressmen or take it up at the summit.

And I guess you dont get that they need us as much as we need them. It's IN THEIR BEST INTEREST that we never default.

We borrow money from everyone. What's your point? You think China is the only country we borrow money from?

I'm done arguing about something that will almost never happen. And if it does, the US will be able to sustain itself far better than China.

KAZ

[Jamaicanman]

I'm not the one speaking about per capita. That's some of the talk of the summit. Go write your congressmen or take it up at the summit.

And I guess you dont get that they need us as much as we need them. It's IN THEIR BEST INTEREST that we never default.

We borrow money from everyone. What's your point? You think China is the only country we borrow money from?

I'm done arguing about something that will almost never happen. And if it does, the US will be able to sustain itself far better than China.

KAZ

I can see why people on her write you have a fucking attitude with that type of response. I don't need to write anyone, I merely pointed out a question of how to determine who pollutes more then someone else.

Don't tell me what I get and don't get. We have a nearly 200 billion trade deficit with China this year to OCT. and owe them how much? Estimates range from 800 billion to 2.5 trillion (Ron Paul). But yep, they need us more.

We borrow money from everyone. No duh? But you brought up no longer coddling CHINA, not EVERYONE. So I pointed out the debt owed to THEM, not Japan, not anyone. If we could survive, then why is Sec of St Clinton going to China and kissing ass begging for our debt to be purchased?

Stupid thing is, who were you "arguing" with? I didn't think there was an argument going on but a discussion about the economics of global warming and it's relation to China.

Maybe hated one is approriate. If that's how you discuss, I can see why you have that nickname.

[KazDog]

I can see why people on her write you have a fucking attitude with that type of response. I don't need to write anyone, I merely pointed out a question of how to determine who pollutes more then someone else.

Don't tell me what I get and don't get. We have a nearly 200 billion trade deficit with China this year to OCT. and owe them how much? Estimates range from 800 billion to 2.5 trillion (Ron Paul). But yep, they need us more.

We borrow money from everyone. No duh? But you brought up no longer coddling CHINA, not EVERYONE. So I pointed out the debt owed to THEM, not Japan, not anyone. If we could survive, then why is Sec of St Clinton going to China and kissing ass begging for our debt to be purchased?

Stupid thing is, who were you "arguing" with? I didn't think there was an argument going on but a discussion about the economics of global warming and it's relation to China.

Maybe hated one is approriate. If that's how you discuss, I can see why you have that nickname.

YOU are the one posing questions to me jackass. I couldn't give two shits whether you like my arguments or not. You have been going around in circles for the past hour.

This will be my last post to you in here. I don't have time to argue the merits of dealing with or without China. It's a pointless discussion that you seem to keep bringing despite several attempts to point out its uselessness.

This is from the Shanghai Daily.....


China's foreign exchange reserves and savings will not only be used to stimulate its domestic economy, but will also be invested in other countries, especially in the US and US assets, in order to support president Obama's stimulus plan. This demonstrates that China is a responsible member of the international community and accepts its obligation to contribute to global economic recovery.

Although China is still a developing country, if it invested all its foreign exchange reserves and savings overseas, the end result would be inflation. But just leaving the money in the bank will result in its value depreciating as the crisis unfolds.

China has invested a vast amount in the USA and in US assets and will continue to purchase US treasury bonds, a move which has been welcomed by both President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. This will enhance US ability to cope with the financial crisis, which in turn will benefit China.

The US is still the biggest economic power in the world and its economic recovery is crucial for the world economy. China's economy still largely depends on exports and its problems have largely resulted from a fall in exports. US economic recovery will enhance demand, which in turn will help lift China out of the economic crisis. Furthermore, the US financial crisis has reached bottom and it will be beneficial for China to invest its reserves in the US and US assets, because it will help to maintain and even increase their value.

DONE ARGUING NONSENSE WITH YOU. You come off a lot like a guy named Gbell.

[harold_bush]

And I wouldn't expect anything less from internet troll

Dude, whose the internet troll?

[insidethe8thpol]

UN's creepy climate chief Rajendra Pachauri stands to make a grotesque fortune off the global warming hoax:

A story emerging out of Britain suggests "follow the money" may explain the enthusiasm of the United Nations to pursue caps on carbon emissions, despite doubts surfacing in the scientific community about the validity of the underlying global warming hypothesis.

A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman since 2002 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stands to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs.

[insidethe8thpol]

Back in 2007, they said the Artic lost about 25% of its ice to melting, which was the 'lowest levels on record', yet, Records only date back to 1972.

In 2008, the ice not only returned, but returned 10 to 20 cm thicker than ever before.

[PhilJr]

YOU are the one posing questions to me jackass. I couldn't give two shits whether you like my arguments or not. You have been going around in circles for the past hour.

This will be my last post to you in here. I don't have time to argue the merits of dealing with or without China. It's a pointless discussion that you seem to keep bringing despite several attempts to point out its uselessness.

This is from the Shanghai Daily.....


China's foreign exchange reserves and savings will not only be used to stimulate its domestic economy, but will also be invested in other countries, especially in the US and US assets, in order to support president Obama's stimulus plan. This demonstrates that China is a responsible member of the international community and accepts its obligation to contribute to global economic recovery.

Although China is still a developing country, if it invested all its foreign exchange reserves and savings overseas, the end result would be inflation. But just leaving the money in the bank will result in its value depreciating as the crisis unfolds.

China has invested a vast amount in the USA and in US assets and will continue to purchase US treasury bonds, a move which has been welcomed by both President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. This will enhance US ability to cope with the financial crisis, which in turn will benefit China.

The US is still the biggest economic power in the world and its economic recovery is crucial for the world economy. China's economy still largely depends on exports and its problems have largely resulted from a fall in exports. US economic recovery will enhance demand, which in turn will help lift China out of the economic crisis. Furthermore, the US financial crisis has reached bottom and it will be beneficial for China to invest its reserves in the US and US assets, because it will help to maintain and even increase their value.

DONE ARGUING NONSENSE WITH YOU. You come off a lot like a guy named Gbell.

Why is it OK to quote the Shanghai Daily here and it is credible, but in another thread you criticise people for quoting from other papers and sources such as this?

[insidethe8thpol]

[harold_bush]

Back in 2007, they said the Artic lost about 25% of its ice to melting, which was the 'lowest levels on record', yet, Records only date back to 1972.

In 2008, the ice not only returned, but returned 10 to 20 cm thicker than ever before.

How dare you try and argue facts

Absolutely comical how the libs (BW, Kaz, etc) in here accuse conservatives of using fear to scare people into what we want. Global warming is perhaps the biggest fear mongering hoax of all time. Let's scare people into thinking the world is going to end and then make an ass load of money off that fear.

[insidethe8thpol]

[KazDog]

Dude, whose the internet troll?

You wanna get into name calling with me Harold? I haven't called you one name in here. But if that's what you want to do, I can certainly go there as well....

Husker is an internet troll. He adds nothing here. His posts in this thread and most others are nothing more than trying to stir shit up.

[KazDog]

Why is it OK to quote the Shanghai Daily here and it is credible, but in another thread you criticise people for quoting from other papers and sources such as this?

I don't criticize for quoting from credible newspapers. I encourage it. While the Shanghai Daily is generally a fairly biased source, I think the the section that I highlighted in bold is very unbiased and correct. It's actually opposite.

It stated very clearly that the US is STILL the biggest economic power in the world and that China depends on it's money from exports and the THAT is the reason they are in an economic crisis. That was the point of the silly argument I was having with another poster.

KAZ