U.S.A dropped to number 12th on the best country to live in!
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
NOT EVEN.
Granted it isn't necessarily his fault, the US during Clinton's admin was way better.
Granted it isn't necessarily his fault, the US during Clinton's admin was way better.
Iceland number 1???? They can have it I dont wanna be in any frozen tundra. As for the current state of affairs in the US I must say the Bush Admin rates at the bottom. High gas and a war that cant be won costing mega dollars that could be spent at home.
Originally Posted by ScrewedUPF150
Iceland number 1???? They can have it I dont wanna be in any frozen tundra. As for the current state of affairs in the US I must say the Bush Admin rates at the bottom. High gas and a war that cant be won costing mega dollars that could be spent at home.
Word has it that Leif Ericsson named Iceland and Greenland like he did to get explorers to go to Greenland (only to find millions of square miles of ice). Iceland, though Greenland's neighbor, benefits from the gulf and jet streams.
Like a big practical Joke.

I tkink it's pretty darn funny anyway.
Iceland is volcanic, it's suppose to be very pretty.
Originally Posted by s2krn
The beauty of living in a free country with many freedoms at your disposal is the freedom of choice. If someone lives in a city too expensive to buy a house or own a vehicle then move. Your income potential is only hindered by your own initiative.
You also have the freedom to read my post fully.
It was stated that the average value of an average American individual is 144K dollars. I Simply stated that that was not true. No chance!
Originally Posted by khendrix2374
You also have the freedom to read my post fully.
It was stated that the average value of an average American individual is 144K dollars. I Simply stated that that was not true. No chance!
It was stated that the average value of an average American individual is 144K dollars. I Simply stated that that was not true. No chance!
I agree, net worth and income are two completely different animals influenced by different things.
As a whole, net worth is more influenced by financial decisions. A smart person with lower income can increase their worth a great deal, and a dumb person with great income can be in the negatives.
Khendrix,
Here's the link I posted, it claims lower median net worth.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/103815/Where-Do-You-Stand-on-America's-Wealth-Spectrum
As a whole, net worth is more influenced by financial decisions. A smart person with lower income can increase their worth a great deal, and a dumb person with great income can be in the negatives.
Khendrix,
Here's the link I posted, it claims lower median net worth.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/103815/Where-Do-You-Stand-on-America's-Wealth-Spectrum
Originally Posted by signmaster
I agree, net worth and income are two completely different animals influenced by different things.
As a whole, net worth is more influenced by financial decisions. A smart person with lower income can increase their worth a great deal, and a dumb person with great income can be in the negatives.
Khendrix,
Here's the link I posted, it claims lower median net worth.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/103815/Where-Do-You-Stand-on-America's-Wealth-Spectrum
As a whole, net worth is more influenced by financial decisions. A smart person with lower income can increase their worth a great deal, and a dumb person with great income can be in the negatives.
Khendrix,
Here's the link I posted, it claims lower median net worth.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/103815/Where-Do-You-Stand-on-America's-Wealth-Spectrum
Just because he doesn't own a car, (that we lose money on....)
He could be investing the equivalent of car payment + gas + insurance each month, earning interest instead of paying.
Same for a house.
Boat
PWC's
Travel Trailer
Tools and equipment
Guns and hunting gear.
Most is a gross loss on money invested.
You aren't likely to get what you paid for it, much less get the cost of ownership back.
Last edited by PSS-Mag; Dec 2, 2007 at 02:55 PM.
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
THe economy, towards the end, was more stable. Also, there was no crazy war spending for imperialism
Bush quotes are awesome too "we need to let OGBYNs practice their love with women"
, or whatever it was.
a whole list:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
Bush quotes are awesome too "we need to let OGBYNs practice their love with women"
, or whatever it was.a whole list:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
sorry craz3d... the clinton economy was smoke and mirrors. The recesion started in about 1998. I don't call that stable. The war spending is NOT for imperialism. We have no design on owning Iraq. They have there own government. We need stable friends in that part of the world. Giving them a democrocy is a very good idea. It is possible that with the right friends and pressures, we could break OPEC. That would only be good for us. Several here expressed the dislike for high gas prices. Who do you think is responsible for that? It most certainly wasn't W. The dumbocrat congress passed bills not allowing for us to drill for oil in the gulf, or anywhere offshore from the U.S. That makes us MORE dependant on forgien oil. No refineries have been built since when? 1976? but our consumption has increased expotentially. Who's fault is that? the dumbocrats. I am so sick of every ill being blamed on W. His is by no means perfect, but the dumbocrats are far worse for our economy.


