Pages

3/27/12

"Could you define the market -- everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli," Scalia asked during the second day of oral arguments.

Scalia's witty argument attempts to draw an analogy between forcing people to buy broccoli and forcing people (and employers, etc.) to buy into government-regulated and mandated healthcare programs.

What do you think WSO? If the government is going to force us to have health insurance of some sort, they might as well go two steps ahead and get us all to eat healthy foods like broccoli, right?

Link to article

Comments (93)

3/28/12

Which brings us to a larger philosophical question. Why spend so much money on a military when a country's own citizens need the money or assistance?

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

3/28/12

I am saying that operationally, the military is one of, if not the best, in the world. When it comes to projects or new builds, they get very porky.

Not sure how this is really controversial. Most people complain about project overruns like the Osprey, but now too many people really say the US military sucks and cannot accomplish their objectives.

In reply to TNA
3/29/12

ANT:
Most people complain about project overruns like the Osprey, but now too many people really say the US military sucks and cannot accomplish their objectives.

I assume you mean "not" too many people...and I should hope that this is a true statement considering our defense budget is greater than the next ten highest spending nations on the list combined.

"An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Check out my blog!

In reply to DonVon
3/29/12

Vontropnats:
ANT:
Most people complain about project overruns like the Osprey, but now too many people really say the US military sucks and cannot accomplish their objectives.

I assume you mean "not" too many people...and I should hope that this is a true statement considering our defense budget is greater than the next ten highest spending nations on the list combined.

Is anyone really "accomplishing their objectives/goals" if they waste money in the process? That's like saying a USD 2'000 paperweight is equivalent to a rock. I guess both accomplish the task, but I would have serious misgivings with the person who choses the former rather than the later.

In reply to TheMasao
3/29/12

TheMasao:
Vontropnats:
ANT:
Most people complain about project overruns like the Osprey, but now too many people really say the US military sucks and cannot accomplish their objectives.

I assume you mean "not" too many people...and I should hope that this is a true statement considering our defense budget is greater than the next ten highest spending nations on the list combined.

Is anyone really "accomplishing their objectives/goals" if they waste money in the process? That's like saying a USD 2'000 paperweight is equivalent to a rock. I guess both accomplish the task, but I would have serious misgivings with the person who choses the former rather than the later.


Operations and r&d are two separate and independent divisions of the military. Research is based on projected needs of future warfare. The reason it is inefficient isn't due to cost overruns on current designs. It is because projects are deemed useless after years of research because the scope of operations has changed from the projected scope 10 years ago.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

In reply to txjustin
3/29/12

txjustin:
elephonky:
ANT:
Perfectly fine. I am selling my car now and telling the insurance company to F off. I made the decision not to drive anymore. It is also not a Federal regulation.

I can drive on my private property without insurance. I can buy, own and sell cars without insurance, I can also choose to drive without insurance and risk the fine/arrest. Insurance is not automatically taken from my taxes and I am not forced to do anything.

So is there no similarity between forcing people to pay for car insurance and forcing them to pay for health insurance (even if one is state-mandated, albeit by all of them, and one is federally mandated)? Both are private markets. But there is a case to be made that both serve the public good despite costing everyone more money.

The main difference is that you can choose to have or not have a car and thus have or not have insurance. When you don't have a car, the lack of insurance is not an issue because you won't be getting into any vehicle accidents that require insurance to cover. You can't, however, choose to have or not have a body that may require health services at some point. Since insurance is all but required for "accidents" (emergency room visits, etc.), why isn't it mandated (like car insurance) so long as you have a functioning body that may require health services (and thus insurance)?

For the record, I'd rather eliminate the health insurance game and lower medical costs across the board. But that won't be happening any time soon.

YOu need to learn the difference between state and federal powers as outlined in teh Constitution before commenting. Not being a dick, but there is a giant difference between the two scenarios you gave.

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I know plenty about state and federal powers in the Constitution. I'd also like to point out that in multiple instances the Supreme Court has held that Federal Law supersedes State Law (McCulloch v. Maryland 1819, Gibbons v. Ogden 1824) and furthermore that the infamous Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) is employed in the case of Obamacare to fulfill the need for use of an enumerated power. (Otherwise Congress would be in the wrong, since it wasn't using an enumerated power and thus the responsibility is left to the states).

You imply that states have the right to mandate auto insurance, but the federal government doesn't have the right to mandate health insurance because the states have different powers than the federal government. Are you okay with state-mandated health insurance then?

In reply to heister
3/29/12

heister:
Eleph that is your argument? Seriously because I am alive the government can force me to buy insurance? What kind of fucking clown are you? Why dont we just declare ourselves to be commies? The fuck is wrong with people today.

If it's so clownish, prove me wrong by saying something other than "wow you're a fucking idiot, you think the government can force me to do anything?!". I outlined why I believe the existence of state-mandated auto insurance makes a good case for why health insurance can be state-mandated as well. The use of the Commerce Clause moves the power from the state to federal government (which is what the current debate is over).

The fuck is wrong with people today? Well, for starters, they don't know how to make a coherent argument (see your post). Secondly, there's little respect for anyone's opinion but one's own (see your post, and also the current U.S. Congress). Lastly, America is full of dumb, lazy snobs that we call children (see any American public school).

Maybe communism would be a nice change...

In reply to DonVon
3/29/12

Vontropnats:
ANT:
Most people complain about project overruns like the Osprey, but now too many people really say the US military sucks and cannot accomplish their objectives.

I assume you mean "not" too many people...and I should hope that this is a true statement considering our defense budget is greater than the next ten highest spending nations on the list combined.

Yeah, this is an appropriate comparison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

As a percent of GDP, the US is close to Russia and probably on par with China (Chinese military spending is hard to quantify, but surly is more than the reported 2%).

Military spending is approx. 20-25% of the Federal budget. ~4.5% of GDP. Not a huge amount at all. Clearly can be pared down, but this idea that we should sacrifice military for social programs is comical. A strong military is essential.

In reply to TNA
3/29/12

ANT:
A strong military is essential.

When we're a sole, unipolar world hegemon and no country can possibility threaten our sovereignty due to MAD? Yep, we really needed to spend $70B on the F-22 project.

"An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Check out my blog!

3/29/12

The issue with military spending is that so much of it goes towards cold war style systems. I was extraordinarily pleased (and surprised) when the F-22 was killed off. It's a relic of a world long gone. We've got plenty of updated F-18s and the F-35 is on the way, not to mention our incredible UAV technology that is going to make the majority of manned aircraft obsolete.

And, btw, the cost of a Predator drone pales in comparison to that of a manned aircraft and it can be controlled by a few dudes out of a base in Arizona.

So, whether its 5% of GDP or whatever, the focus should be on what our military is procuring and why, with the cost being a secondary concern. As the military continues to modernize for 21st century warfare, we ought to see spending come down.

In reply to heister
3/29/12

heister:
TheMasao:
Vontropnats:
ANT:
Most people complain about project overruns like the Osprey, but now too many people really say the US military sucks and cannot accomplish their objectives.

I assume you mean "not" too many people...and I should hope that this is a true statement considering our defense budget is greater than the next ten highest spending nations on the list combined.

Is anyone really "accomplishing their objectives/goals" if they waste money in the process? That's like saying a USD 2'000 paperweight is equivalent to a rock. I guess both accomplish the task, but I would have serious misgivings with the person who choses the former rather than the later.


Operations and r&d are two separate and independent divisions of the military. Research is based on projected needs of future warfare. The reason it is inefficient isn't due to cost overruns on current designs. It is because projects are deemed useless after years of research because the scope of operations has changed from the projected scope 10 years ago.

Have you served in the military or dealt with budgeting?

Judging by your comment I'll venture to say that's a no. Budgeting in ALL departments in the military are based on the previous year's expenditure, i.e. no zero-based budgeting. The result is a free for all towards the end of the Fiscal Year when any and all budgeting centers are encouraged to spend everything they have (need fifteen extra computer monitors for two people?), lest they receive less money than the year before.

Only in government is the reward for saving money, a reduced ability to request funds the next year.

Anyway, to come full circle. Surely this money could be spent on something useful, say health care or education or something that would benefit the public.

3/29/12

Ok, cool, whatever. No sense arguing the point because you see budgeting for a F22 as the same as executing a military battle.

If military spending is decreased the tax money should go back to the people who pay taxes. I am sick of hearing "if we cut military spending we could use that money on something else". No, you can give it back to the people it was taken from. There is no need for a nanny state.

Taxes are not property of the government. They are given by the people for a specific job.

FYI - You don't stay the worlds sole superpower forever. You need to constantly spend and develop.

In reply to TNA
3/29/12

ANT:
Ok, cool, whatever. No sense arguing the point because you see budgeting for a F22 as the same as executing a military battle.

uhh.. WTF?

ANT:
If military spending is decreased the tax money should go back to the people who pay taxes. I am sick of hearing "if we cut military spending we could use that money on something else". No, you can give it back to the people it was taken from. There is no need for a nanny state.

Taxes are not property of the government. They are given by the people for a specific job.

FYI - You don't stay the worlds sole superpower forever. You need to constantly spend and develop.

Ahh yes, the Nanny state. So now we are at the crux of the issue. You just don't want your tax money going to insure someone you find as less than yourself.

3/29/12

You are equating project budgeting to the military being able to effectively fight a war. I am saying that US training and ground operations are separate from the R&D aspect.

The US has some of the best trained, most competent soldiers in the world. Very different from cost over runs in developing a plane or weapons system.

And no, my tax money is mine, given to the government for national defense, foreign affairs, post office, etc. Specific duties afforded to a Federal government, that the states cannot do on their own. I do not impose my beliefs on others and do not want them to impose theirs on mine.

If I had my way I would cut almost all social spending and divert it towards animal abuse or nature preserves. I would like to see US military forces deployed in Africa to protect endangered animals. How would you like MY beliefs imposed on you, using your taxes to execute on them? It is not the job of the Federal government to do this and they should not do it.

Provide a safety net and then let nature sort out the rest.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

3/29/12

Ha, the one thing ANT and I definitely agree upon is a love for animals.

Animals > people

3/29/12
In reply to TNA
3/29/12

ANT:
FYI - You don't stay the worlds sole superpower forever. You need to constantly spend and develop.

In an era of liberal democracies dominating the international sphere, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Sure, there are rogue states that pose some entirely minute threat to the United States, but the only rising power that has any legitimacy is China, and to be frank, that place is full of technocratic pragmatists and the likelihood of any sort of altercation between the two powers is as farfetched as a hot war was with the USSR back in the day.

Also, just in absolute terms, we are so far ahead in terms of military technology that we can afford to sit back for a little while. As much as neocons shun this fact, the world is full of rational actors who already know better than to subvert the USA in any tangible way when it comes to military reach.

"An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Check out my blog!

In reply to TNA
3/29/12

ANT:
You are equating project budgeting to the military being able to effectively fight a war. I am saying that US training and ground operations are separate from the R&D aspect.

The US has some of the best trained, most competent soldiers in the world. Very different from cost over runs in developing a plane or weapons system.

Actually I was referring to operations, I did not work in the R&D field. And if you don't think cost effectiveness is key to winning, you clearly haven't read up on how WWII was won and would have no idea who the Whiz Kids were.

ANT:
And no, my tax money is mine, given to the government for national defense, foreign affairs, post office, etc. Specific duties afforded to a Federal government, that the states cannot do on their own. I do not impose my beliefs on others and do not want them to impose theirs on mine.

That's convenient. So then, if you, individually, disagree with a policy you shouldn't have to pay for it.

ANT:
If I had my way I would cut almost all social spending and divert it towards animal abuse or nature preserves. I would like to see US military forces deployed in Africa to protect endangered animals. How would you like MY beliefs imposed on you, using your taxes to execute on them? It is not the job of the Federal government to do this and they should not do it.

Provide a safety net and then let nature sort out the rest.

What is a safety net then?

In reply to DonVon
3/29/12

Vontropnats:
ANT:
FYI - You don't stay the worlds sole superpower forever. You need to constantly spend and develop.

In an era of liberal democracies dominating the international sphere, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Sure, there are rogue states that pose some entirely minute threat to the United States, but the only rising power that has any legitimacy is China, and to be frank, that place is full of technocratic pragmatists and the likelihood of any sort of altercation between the two powers is as farfetched as a hot war was with the USSR back in the day.

Also, just in absolute terms, we are so far ahead in terms of military technology that we can afford to sit back for a little while. As much as neocons shun this fact, the world is full of rational actors who already know better than to subvert the USA in any tangible way when it comes to military reach.

Here here, China has its own domestic issues that far supersede any imagined threat with the US.

In reply to TNA
3/29/12

ANT:
Oooohhhh. You love animals also ??

Big time. Unlike people, an animal will never disappoint you.

3/29/12

So you are saying the US Military is operationally inefficient?

No, not because I disagree with something, but it is not the job of the Federal Government to do this. It is a limited and restricted government. Someone wanting social programs is just as wrong as me wanting Rhino's protected by Delta Force. My point is MY individual value system has no business in the government, just as someone who wants to reduce the military and roll out social programs galore.

And please, we have a great net. Welfare, Food stamps, Heating assistance, Housing assistance, Free K-12, low income grants for college, on and on and on and on. We just are not as lush as Europe (thank God).

And when these "wonderful" programs bankrupt a country, will we be able to roll them back? No, of course not. The government will come, hat in hand, and demand more from the producers, or else the users will revolt.

Once given, impossible to take back.

In reply to TheKing
3/29/12

TheKing:
ANT:
Oooohhhh. You love animals also ??

Big time. Unlike people, an animal will never disappoint you.

You talking Dog/Cat or you into other animals? I am an EPIC large cat fan. And African animals also. And Elephants.

3/29/12

Dogs / Cats mostly, but I have a soft spot for animals in general.

3/29/12

Ooohhh, I want to get a Corgi myself. Not home enough though. Eventually though.

In reply to elephonky
3/29/12

elephonky:
txjustin:
elephonky:
ANT:
Perfectly fine. I am selling my car now and telling the insurance company to F off. I made the decision not to drive anymore. It is also not a Federal regulation.

I can drive on my private property without insurance. I can buy, own and sell cars without insurance, I can also choose to drive without insurance and risk the fine/arrest. Insurance is not automatically taken from my taxes and I am not forced to do anything.

So is there no similarity between forcing people to pay for car insurance and forcing them to pay for health insurance (even if one is state-mandated, albeit by all of them, and one is federally mandated)? Both are private markets. But there is a case to be made that both serve the public good despite costing everyone more money.

The main difference is that you can choose to have or not have a car and thus have or not have insurance. When you don't have a car, the lack of insurance is not an issue because you won't be getting into any vehicle accidents that require insurance to cover. You can't, however, choose to have or not have a body that may require health services at some point. Since insurance is all but required for "accidents" (emergency room visits, etc.), why isn't it mandated (like car insurance) so long as you have a functioning body that may require health services (and thus insurance)?

For the record, I'd rather eliminate the health insurance game and lower medical costs across the board. But that won't be happening any time soon.

YOu need to learn the difference between state and federal powers as outlined in teh Constitution before commenting. Not being a dick, but there is a giant difference between the two scenarios you gave.

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I know plenty about state and federal powers in the Constitution. I'd also like to point out that in multiple instances the Supreme Court has held that Federal Law supersedes State Law (McCulloch v. Maryland 1819, Gibbons v. Ogden 1824) and furthermore that the infamous Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) is employed in the case of Obamacare to fulfill the need for use of an enumerated power. (Otherwise Congress would be in the wrong, since it wasn't using an enumerated power and thus the responsibility is left to the states).

You imply that states have the right to mandate auto insurance, but the federal government doesn't have the right to mandate health insurance because the states have different powers than the federal government. Are you okay with state-mandated health insurance then?

Yes, that is within the state's power. See Massachusetts.

3/29/12

You are misconstruing the nature of car insurance. If you don't have a car, you don't have to buy car insurance. You can ride a bike or walk and not purchase insurance. This is also why the states can require you to have a driver's license, if you want to drive. But, if you don't want to drive, you don't have to get one. Because the states have plenary powers, they can enact more intrusive measure- the flip-side is that you have more influence over your state government and thus can have more input into the laws it enacts. The Federal Government does not have plenary power; it has enumerated powers. Ergo, if the power does not directly exist, or allows the Federal Government to effect an enumerated power, the Federal Government CANNOT do it.

The Obama Administration is saying that everyone will be involved in healthcare because they are alive. And that they are regulating insurance, which you could buy, which is interstate commerce (the irony being that it is illegal to buy health insurance over state lines because of anti-competition laws enacted by the states). This case is an extension of the overreach established in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) of the government saying- "Even though you are not involved in commerce, you could be. And you lack of participation 'substantially affects' commerce, therefore we can tell you to proactively do, or refrain from, an certain economic activity." The Supreme Court bought that argument in 1942.

And, yes, although philosophically I would oppose it, it is entirely within a state's legal authority to mandate health insurance coverage- this is a plenary power.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

In reply to TNA
3/29/12

ANT:
1) It should be called a tax because that is what it is. Instead Obama has tried calling it a mandate which is very different than a tax. All because he wanted to be cute with things.

2) Of course this is about control. Once you allow the government to force you to buy something "for your own good" you allow them to force you to do other things. Government is always about control.

The Gov't can force you to work for the army, thats why we have to sign up for the draft. Today we had this discussion in my economics class and my economic professor said, that the mandate actually makes insurance cheaper. He also said their is this economist who won the nobel peace prize, on why universal healthcare is actually cheaper, forgot the guys name.

Anyways Scalia said that the penalty you have to pay for not buying the insurance is violation of the 8th amendment and its an unusual punishment...

Anthony Kennedy is going be the swing vote for this.

3/30/12

The problem with the mandate is that it is illegal, the problem with a tax is that you are essentially going to be signing your political death sentence. Obama played with matches and burnt his political house down. Those who say the federal government has the right to enact legislation that forces someone to engage in interstate commerece do not understand the limitations of the interstate commerece clause. The clause was designed to settle commerce disputes across state lines. As was mentioned earlier the use of the commerce clause as justification is totally null and void since insurance is not a fully interstate commerce game. Large multi state companies can provide over state line coverage based in an operational division state however they can not shop a non operations state for a better rate. This is what the interstate commerce clause is about.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

3/31/12

I have a hard time with the claim that the military is run well...the US accounts for fully 50% of the World's military spending and we currently are having trouble defeating a loose collection of third world tribes in afghjanistan. very efficient.

3/31/12

We choose to lose in Afghanistan. The USA is the biggest pussy invader the world has ever scene. If we rolled into a country and acted like the USSR did we'd be perfectly fine. We could have repaid our entire deficit with Iraqi oil if we wanted to.

The US war machine is unrivaled. Maybe one of the best historically.

3/31/12

There is no more difficult war to fight than an insurgency especially when you're a country that tried to minimize civilian casualties. There's a reason the underdog always resorts to Guerilla Warfare/Insurgency etc...because it works. The US did it in the Revolution against a far superior British Force, its why we lost in Vietnam and Russia lost in the Stan before us.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to TNA
3/31/12

ANT:
We choose to lose in Afghanistan. The USA is the biggest pussy invader the world has ever scene. If we rolled into a country and acted like the USSR did we'd be perfectly fine. We could have repaid our entire deficit with Iraqi oil if we wanted to.

The US war machine is unrivaled. Maybe one of the best historically.

Like the USSR? U do know that they also lost a war in afghanistan right?

In reply to blastoise
4/1/12

blastoise:
Bro, requiring to purchase healthcare is clearly Constitutional under the commerce clause.

You are saying they don't have the right to require every one to buy it, you are out of touch with the constitution.

Also, I bet any one who tries to argue with moi will have to use personal opinion, if you do GL I'm bringing my A game to this discussion.

Come at me.

Oh, please. The Constitution does NOT authorize the government to mandate that you purchase a product. The Commerce Clause was essentially written to ensure that states didn't impose tariffs on each other. It simply reads "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce... among the several states." Wickard v. Filburn was one of the worst supreme court decisions ever decided. Medicare, social security, etc., are all unconstitutional at their cores.

In reply to TheMasao
4/1/12

TheMasao:
Which brings us to a larger philosophical question. Why spend so much money on a military when a country's own citizens need the money or assistance?

What gives the government the right to spend money on personal assistance in the first place? The reason we spend so much money on the military is because it is constitutionally one of the few activities our federal union is supposed to be engaged in. Now you can absolutely make the argument that our war spending is through the roof (I for one am a strict non-interventionist). But spending on defense like missile defense systems is crucial to our nation's security.

In reply to heister
4/1/12

heister:
The problem with the mandate is that it is illegal, the problem with a tax is that you are essentially going to be signing your political death sentence. Obama played with matches and burnt his political house down. Those who say the federal government has the right to enact legislation that forces someone to engage in interstate commerece do not understand the limitations of the interstate commerece clause. The clause was designed to settle commerce disputes across state lines. As was mentioned earlier the use of the commerce clause as justification is totally null and void since insurance is not a fully interstate commerce game. Large multi state companies can provide over state line coverage based in an operational division state however they can not shop a non operations state for a better rate. This is what the interstate commerce clause is about.

100% correct on the purpose of the interstate commerce clause. Just because something happens to occur in several states does not make it subject to what the framers designed as the Commerce Clause. The CC was meant to take the power away from states enacting damaging commercial policies with respect to other states, that's it.

In reply to elephonky
4/1/12

elephonky:
I'm sure Scalia is more intelligent than this quote gives off. I'm a fucking teenager and I could make him look like a dipshit for asking the question.

Is the price of broccoli grossly inflated relative to other goods? If we go to the market to buy broccoli, can we see the price? Does everyone pay the same price, or do some people pay more for broccoli? Can I be prevented from buying broccoli by being unfairly priced out of the market due to a situation out of my control (I have three kids that REALLY like broccoli, for example)?

Scalia votes one way, and he'll do that in this case. He might as well be ignored altogether.

Well, you're a fucking teenager and you still have a lot to learn. All of the hypothetical questions you ask have no relevance whatsoever. The aspects of the healthcare market that are unjust or different than the broccoli market (being unfairly priced out due to situations out of your control, etc.) have absolutely nothing to with the constitutional question at hand. You're creating a litany of issues that are "unfair" or unique about the healthcare market in general.The question at hand is whether the Commerce Clause: that Congress shall have the Power: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," allows the Congress to enact an insurance mandate. The broccoli argument stems from the fact that if the government can mandate that we buy a product that we all use (hey, everyone's gonna use health services), could they not regulate what we eat? (hey, everyone's gonna eat food). The arguments against this line of thinking address what supporters of the mandate see as the uniqueness of the healthcare market with respect to interstate commerce: if someone doesn't buy health insurance, others pay for the cost (hence, the affect on interstate commerce) whereas if one doesn't like broccoli and doesn't eat it, the costs don't get transferred to someone else by way of some broccoli center. All of your hypothetical questions don't address at all how the COMMERCE CLAUSE does or doesn't invalidate the broccoli argument.

In reply to Bondarb
4/1/12

Bondarb:
ANT:
We choose to lose in Afghanistan. The USA is the biggest pussy invader the world has ever scene. If we rolled into a country and acted like the USSR did we'd be perfectly fine. We could have repaid our entire deficit with Iraqi oil if we wanted to.

The US war machine is unrivaled. Maybe one of the best historically.

Like the USSR? U do know that they also lost a war in afghanistan right?

Omg, for real??? Maybe they lost because the US was helping the Taliban. Wow, thanks for playing hahaha

In reply to TNA
4/1/12

ANT:
Bondarb:
ANT:
We choose to lose in Afghanistan. The USA is the biggest pussy invader the world has ever scene. If we rolled into a country and acted like the USSR did we'd be perfectly fine. We could have repaid our entire deficit with Iraqi oil if we wanted to.

The US war machine is unrivaled. Maybe one of the best historically.

Like the USSR? U do know that they also lost a war in afghanistan right?

Omg, for real??? Maybe they lost because the US was helping the Taliban. Wow, thanks for playing hahaha

or maybe they lost because their army was as bloated and over-stretched as ours has become.

4/2/12

To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • LinkeIn
  • Twitter
Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
In reply to Cane0180
4/2/12
4/2/12
In reply to darknight12
4/3/12
4/3/12

Pages

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling