mediapro

Pres. Obama: Counterfeiter-in-Chief?

This will be tough for you to understand, but sending money down the rathole in Iraq and Afghanistan is the least of our worries.

Check true or false to the following. Maybe you'll at least think about the consequences of war:

1. More than 4000 mostly young American lives were lost in a war we have yet to define.

2. An untold number of Iraqi lives have been lost from relentless shelling of an urban population.

3. By year three of this war even the most fervent war supporter saw the coalition of the willing dwindle to a precious few.

4. For the next two generations we will be paying the bills as grateful Americans to the more than 100,000 war veterans who were damaged by this war.

Since you pegged the reason for going to war as the last one that Bush could dreamup -- unseating Saddam -- I'll ask you:

Were the Khmer Rouge terrorists? Was Idi Amin a madman? Pick your dictator and let the wars rage. If you really want to know the source for Hussein's weaponry and WMD, go back to the 1980-1984 period of U.S. support for Iraq against Iran and you will find numerous reports of extensive weapons sales, chemical stockpiles and even photos of Donald Rumsfeld making nice-nice with this hated dictator who killed his own people.


If you can't learn the lessons from recent history, you my friend will repeat them.


On Mar 26 01:05 PM milkchaser wrote:

> The cost of the war in Iraq and the cost of the "stimulus package"
> are comparable. But the stimulus package will be spent in less time.
> The war in Iraq arguably enhanced national security. The stimulus
> package was predominately a payoff to various Democratic constituencies.
> I doubt that either the war or excessive Federal gov't spending will
> result in economic growth, but at least the war accomplished something:
> it's hard to argue that the world would be safer if Saddam were still
> above ground and breathing.
>
> Besides which, Bush is gone. It's all on Obama now.

The Stimulus Bill: Did the Government Break Our Leg and Offer Us a Crutch?

I agree that the author overall provides a decent analysis and some hard-to-stomach solutions. Though I disagree with the need for a fully balanced budget, I wish that the author had run through the economic thought that got us into this mess. That would have supplied some direction towards what needs to be changed. My two cents:

Flash back to the neo-con's answer to 1970's stagflation and Milton Friedman's Shock Economics Theory he plied so well in South America for right wing fascists.

Roll tape a bit forward to the Gipper. Cut taxes, spend on defense out the wazoo, run record deficits, de-regulate markets and watch Uncle Milties' magic work.

While every right wing neo-con tape loop is buzzing with out-of-control GSEs, we all seem to conveniently ignore how all of this silly and frightening theoretical economic approach played out around the world through the likes of the IMF, World Bank, Halliburton, and their ilk.

Look at any country where this supply-side, trickle down, deregulated gambit has played and look at how eeiry is the similarity between those countries and this one:

1. The top 1% control 40% of all financial wealth in the U.S. The top 20% another 52%, leaving the rest of us (80%) America's financial wealth at a whopping 8%.

2. In terms of inherited wealth only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000. 91.9% receive nothing. Yet the "death tax" was/is the highest priority on the ultra-conservative agenda.

Now for some sobering reminders:

Under Clinton we enjoyed a $287 Billion SURPLUS that's now an ever-growing DEFICIT that at last peek was nearing $1.4 Trillion and national debt that has grown from $5.7 Trillion to $10.2 Trillion in just seven years.

It wasn't because Clinton was an economic genious. He simply returned out-of-control revenue reduction (tax cuts) back to the Reagan rates and chose folks who shared his philosophy of government and its role. I'll put my money in the hands of the guys that believe that it's the government's job to invest in the 80% of us that need practical ways to grow our own wealth (smart energy policy, infrastructure development, education).


On Feb 09 02:00 PM Thomas J. Gordon wrote:

> kelm,
> good comments. write an article. tell us what your thoughts are
> about responsible financial regulation.
> insiderman, Concerning the Bush deficits. I have come to the conclusion
> that very few people vote for people who balance budgets. This leaves
> the Republicans in a position of being the constant and nagging naysayer
> if they insist on balanced budgets. I think this is what is really
> behind the famous Cheney comment that "deficits don't matter". Until
> something really bad happens that people can directly associate with
> deficits, deficits aren't something a politician gets rewarded for
> by paying attention to them.

Fear and Loathing of the Stimulus Plan

By your interpretation, we should be suspicious of every for-profit entity as well as the government. Any publicly traded company worth its salt should have self-interest and personal profit as its primary motivators. Would you like to see the companies that you invest in abandon their profit motives in favor of community values?

In fact the philosophical underpinnings of this country were based on Hobbes and Locke's interpretation of self-interest being the primary motive for political thought. There's was not necessarily their desire, but an observation and interpretation of how the human mind works to form the basis for a sustainable social contract.

This stimulus action is a long-overdue attempt to both help feed the profit motive while steering the ship of state towards equally long-overdue infrastructure repairs and movement away from our dependence on an oil-based economy.

As for me, Rousseau was a right-on dude!


On Feb 04 04:55 AM Tradememe wrote:

> Stimulus only works in the minds of the people who are pushing for
> it. They usually have good self-interested motives.

A New Plan That Just Might Work

So Zubin, was your headline a tease or a tongue-in-cheek comment on the Brits?

Would you please expound? Why isn't nationalization a good or bad idea?

The Presidential Speech, in Context

And, oh yes... poster flamorte, hope that you're not on the pot without the paper when the $3 Trillion bill comes in for the last event that Bush railroaded through. Or don't you remember the little Mission Accomplished?

The Presidential Speech, in Context

Weren't you guys listening to our dear leader? Didn't you hear him describe the basics of the importance of the bailout?

You must have been tuned into the Cubs-Mets game when he laid it out pure and simple for all the idiots who voted TWICE for him. Quote:

Suppose your on the pot and too late you noticed that you were out of toilet paper. Then I come running to the bathroom with a fresh roll. That's a bailout. Now do you see how important it is, that $700 Billion roll of TP is? What's the alternative? Your hands?

How much more clear could our dear leader be?

Are Investors Waiting for a Crash-Like Decline?

For the first time in my investment life I'm thinking of running for the hills. I'm 60 years, have purposely throttled back on work and looking at protection for the first time. Overall my portfolio (tax and tax-deferred) is about 700K. I'm a typical moderate-conservative risk kind of guy and have about 300K in liquid.

Don't usually listen to the CNBC turkeys, but today I heard Bill Gross, in no uncertain terms, caution that If LEH caused heartburn, an AIG failure would be a massive heart attack. His words were something like, "If I saw a tsunami coming, I would head for high ground, and that to me is Treasuries and mortgaged-backed securities."

His explanation was the obvious. AIG's credit card tab has just gone up with its downgrade. Even Chapter 11 would be dubious as a prelude to Chapter 9, and if that happens, the ripples grow into that giant wave putting all the remaining financials who carry insured paper at the same risk.

I have NEVER considered totally liquidating securities and rode through the dot com bubble without a whimper, but now I'm vulnerable.