Actually, it's the end of the Bush nightmare, so suddenly without any change in circumstances, they magically want to declare victory...and what an empty victory it is.

UG is always the apologist for tyrrany .... as long as it's America who is the tyrant.

No political reconciliation could take place when factions were fighting mob-style for control of the country. Now that this aspect is over - Iraq took control of Basra the other day, in the midst of more important news about teen pregnancies - they have to remain united in the face of the threat of Iran, and the majority wants to stay united. The ending of violence allows reconciliation to go ahead - and it is.

I can't help but wonder if the baddies just decided to lay low until the U.S. draws down it's presence? :confused:

could be. I'm still waiting for the Germans to strike again.

That sounds plausible, likely even. Then the question becomes "What happens then?". Can we possibly prevent such an outcome? Should we? When does it become a local problem?

Certainly no one expects there to be perfect harmony, order without dissent, even violent dissent. Some level of this dissent is ... criminal misbehavior. And in my estimation, the responsibility for the response to crime is the purview of the justice and law enforcement arms of the state. Not our state.

Some greater level of dissent, exceeding the state's ability to maintain order, is beyond criminal misbehavior--it is revolution. Or, liberation, depending on the color of the jersey. On whose side will we be then?

The Germans:thepain:

Thanks Griff. That made me LOL just a little.

bwahahahah!

what channel is that on, anyway? I love new shows.

Perhaps they're just waiting till the democrats take over and remove as many troops as they can. Then the baddies will do whatever they want - they know the democrats won't retaliate. They'll just blame the previous administration.

The US turned Anwar over to the Iraqi army and policemen who are now in charge of maintaining order there.

Wait a minute! The D's won't let us drill for oil because of the cute animals but we'll turn it over the Iraqi's??? and won't they be cold up there anyway? I'm telling you we better investigate this Palin character some more.

Anbar. :D

That's why he chose Sarah Palin! We're giving ANWR to the Iraqis!!!

i figured. i just thought the image of a bunch of iraqis running around the alaskan wilderness was kind of funny.

Nixon also knew Nam was unwinnable when he entered office. His only objective - not lose that war under his watch. Spin included "peace with honor". So Nixon sacrificed precious treasures for his greater glory. Like Iraq, Nam was a civil war made more complex by American presence. As in "Mission Accomplished"", the president said anything to avoid that reality. Where have the reasons for civil war been eliminated in "Mission Accomplished"?

George Jr got exactly what he wanted - a war that would not end on his watch. We are now committed to "Mission Accomplished" until 2011 when Iraqis kick us out. We learn after that whether a strategic objective was achieved - and whose strategic objective gets achieved.

As in Nam, body counts don’t measure results or define a strategic objective. Known to those who learned the lessons of Nam.

As the Iraqi vets against the war in Iraq say....

YOU CAN'T WIN AN OCCUPATION!

Since a "Mission Accomplished" occupation has almost been won, then American troops will be leaving soon. After all, Phase four planning is mostly accomplished in 6 months. The strategic objective - a political settlement - is almost complete. However Sec of Defense Gates says "Mission Accomplished" will be ongoing for many years. From the Washington Post of 10 Sept 2008: Slow is an understatement. A political solution - the purpose of war - all but does not exist. How can this be if we are winning? Another lesson from Nam. One can win every tactical objective (every battle) and still lose the war. In "Mission Accomplished", a political settlement is absolutely required. Even Sec of Defense Gates admits that will not happen for many years. Of course not. No political settlement is in sight. The surge has not achieved a strategic objective despite so much rhetoric posted by others that ignores that fact. which is exactly what happens when a political settlement does not exist.

How curious. Our leaders said a Nam victory required many more years. With no political settlement, that war was lost. George Jr (Cheney) got exactly what he (and Nixon) wanted - the war to be lost on someone else's watch. The Surge accomplished what George Jr wanted.

Meanwhile, due to no Phase Four planning and due to no strategic objective, Afghanistan is only getting worse. Same mistake made by same wacko extremists. Troops removed from Iraq must be deployed in greater numbers in Afghanistan. Another Vietnam because the time to achieve a strategic objective in Afghanistan was instead wasted by Pearl Harboring Iraq. Just another example of why wacko extremists are so dangerous to their own nation. "Mission Accomplished".

Despite so much rhetoric here to the contrary, Iraq is no closer to being a victory - as even Gates' testimoney before the House says. Without a political settlement, "Mission Accomplished" cannot and will not be won. Deja vue Nam.

Round table discussion with commanders.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/0...roun.html#more

An interesting piece form Merc's link

The weak dollar means a bigger pile of dollars for Iraq, but that only helps them if they are spending those dollars here. I suspect they are buying substantial amounts of food and arms from the U.S.

This kind of thinking keeps you in a condition of complete noncomprehension of American history, radar, particularly the history of the last hundred years. Everyone but you knows better, and a good many of the ones who do are now glaring at you. Your desire that we be the tyrant -- howsomever -- makes you one very stupid leftist, committed forever to the wrong. Geez, are you ever easy to sucker. You cannot be right and be the way you are, radar. Wise up -- what America does is shoot at tyrants, which you will never acknowledge, from remarkably silly motivations. You are a slave to many stupid emotional desires, and you really need a liberation which you aren't able to comprehend, owing to your resolute purblindness -- you'd rather be the schmuck you're used to being than a rational thinker about policy. Ranting emotionalism and telling me how awful I am for pointing out where your ideas aren't cutting it do not amount to reinforcing your argument. Instead, you lose it utterly.

Tw thinks active strugglers for democracy amount to "wacko extremists." Noted, and despised. Tw has no faith in democracy or in liberal social orders' historically-proven goodness, prosperity, and general fairness. After all, if he objects so vehemently to removing tyranny and replacing it with democracy, then what social paradigm does tw prefer instead of democracies? He's afraid to answer frankly.

Effin' wacko. Likely got a swastika inlaid in his linoleum.

Democracy does not equate to freedom or liberty. Killing people to force democracy on them is not spreading freedom and is not spreading libertarianism.

America does indeed practice tyranny, both at home and abroad. Unlike UG, I have a firm and accurate comprehension of reality, geopolitical conditions, and American and world history. America props up dictatorships, overthrows democracies, trains and arms terrorists, puts murderers into positions of authority, sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, bullies other countries (including our allies), acts like America is the police or the boss of the world, gets involved in every petty dispute among other nations, arms both sides of every conflict, etc.

UGs philosophy can't stand the light of day. It's the philosophy of murderers and tyrants. He doesn't think clearly or rationally. He is devoid of reason and intellect. The hilarious thing is hi outcries that we should violate the U.S. Constitution and misuse the U.S. military to murder other people to force American democracy on them is nothing but emotional whimpering. If he were able to think clearly, objectively, and intelligently, he would see the HUGE flaws, gaping holes, and pure emotionalism of his arguments.

He is actually stupid enough to believe if someone else invades a country without provocation, murders people, and overthrows the leadership of that country, they are a tyrant, but if someone does the same thing with an American uniform on, they are defenders of freedom.

UG has never been the brightest bulb on the tree. He has never had anything even remotely resembling facts, logic, reason, or truth behind him; just emotional pleas, an inferiority complex, and a philosophy shared by despots and tyrants like Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, etc.

Despots and tyrants always think they are doing the right thing. They always believe they are helping people. Adolph Hitler genuinely believed he was helping the people of Germany and cleaning up the world. Of course these pathetic people are insane, clueless, and have no grasp on reality; much like UG.

:lol2:

Radar's elaborate disguises of his tyrannical nature behind a cloak of social acceptability and moral pretense fool no one, and show the dimness of his own bulb.

Paul, you continue in your daily abdication of any moral standing. Quit digging yourself deeper before the hole caves in on your head.

You have long ceased to argue the actual merits of your own case, and absurdly enough concentrate on attacking a homemade caricature of what you would like my argument to really be, or which you think it is. Strawman tactics when you try them may impress you. Why do you think they'd impress me?

Your situation, quite in keeping with the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, is in essence that you set some consideration over the worth of human liberty. Yet as a libertarian, you need to understand that without liberty, life just ain't worth living, and that this is true not merely for Americans, but for all of humanity. This idea you will note does not stop at America's borders. Humanity's troubles come from the places that are unfree -- as even you do not dispute. When unfree places are blessed with freedom, wealth and contentment ensue, because the greatest human obstacles to wealth are swept aside. Hence, liberty is the most important thing. I recognize this. I want to get it for the peoples who don't have it, and I see no moral tinge supplied by who does the getting. Fighting for it brings two things: death for the slavemongers, and a consequent inability to keep anyone enslaved. You are half right: the people who get killed don't get democracy forced on them. Instead, it forces them out of the oppression game, and permanently. Those who survive are the ones that get the democracy, and it isn't forced. It is what they want, and if they get it, we get much less in the way of trouble.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as well as Mugabe etcetera all thought something else should be set above human liberty, and all acted on this belief. You too set something above obliterating tyranny (clear enough from your vehement opposition to it) and above human liberty, which is something I do not do. You, my friend, are keeping some very unsavory philosophical company. It's a symptom of a narcissistically disordered personality -- examine Mao in particular for pathological narcissism, and the light may dawn. Well, it'll dawn for a man capable of thinking rationally for real, and not just simulating the ability.

The argument against the idea that America practices international tyranny is easily and convincingly made to sane readers: the United States Navy is a huge, bluewater operation beside which all other navies on the planet look more like coast guards, and often handle only a coastguard mission. The interesting point is that no one, not even the well liberated and rather prickly and quite wealthy English-speaking nations, is trying in the least to build a navy to fight ours, and the US Navy can readly put ordnance on target in nearly every nation on the globe. Not even China, on which some cast a suspicious eye, is making anything visible as an effort at this. Japan is abundantly wealthy and could raise up a two-ocean (Pacific, Indian, Persian Gulf) navy that could eclipse the Imperial Japanese Navy for global power. They could use a navy like that themselves to act in their national interest, but clearly conceive that they don't need to.

No one not a self-declared enemy is worried about what we will do with our Navy, and they are not worried about what we will do with our Army either. Something heard often, and in all kinds of odd places in trouble spots is, "When will the Americans come and help?" Tyranny, my bilobate ass, Paul. Your entire argument has just collapsed, falsified.

The entire globe trusts us to shoot only at the bad actors or they would be arming against us. They aren't.

Time for you to stop desiring the United States to be tyrannous; what happens to Paul Ireland's corporeal form should your manifest desire come true? I figure it'd be a wall and a blindfold. This might be understandable after somebody gets enough of a bellyful of your Michael Newdow fashion of thought and interaction with mankind, but still it would amount to just a bit much, no?

Your incapacity for liberationism tells me that on some deep level, you just plain don't get humanity. Not like I do. You don't have, for you flatly refuse it, the clue that humans want their freedom, and can do things with it that anything less cannot allow, and never does.

This is really part of the previous post, but Edit seems to be glitching.

The entire globe is trusting us to shoot only at the bad actors. If they did not trust us so, and if we were not proving worthy of the trust, they would be arming against us. They aren't, and they aren't planning an arms race either.

Meanwhile, on the blog The Monarchist, some thoughtful commentary; the blogger reckons libertarianism to be the second-best governmental mindset, setting constitutionalism in first place.

If we were to compare our moral standings on earth, yours would be at the deepest part of the Mariana's Trench and mine on the top of Mount Everest. You have no moral standing whatsoever. You are trying to rationalize invading other nations and killing people, and I am saying that killing people is wrong, and they have a right and a duty to determine their own destiny. I've never even hinted that the tyranny others suffer through is socially acceptable. I've said that it is horrible, and I hope that they will find a way to shed the chains of their oppressors for themselves in the same way America did for ourselves.

As usual, you accuse me of doing the very thing you are doing. You used a strawman in the last paragraph of this same post. I am willing to bet I could find 20 strawmen you have created and attacked in this thread alone.

I have provided concrete proof that your positions are not only unconstitutional, but violate the teachings of every single historically significant libertarian. I've proven that you don't know the meaning of the word libertarian or its origins.

It is not up to you to decide what priority others should place on liberty or whether their lives aren't worth living. That decision belongs to each of us. In every country where people are living under the thumb of a tyrannical government, the people of that country have placed life above liberty. In even the harshest and most restrictive countries on earth, the people could take over the government if they chose to. If they really believed that liberty was worth more than life, they could beat the forces of that government. They can do this in North Korea, Russia, China, Vietnam, or anywhere else. No government has the power or desire to kill everyone in their country. They would have nobody to rule. If the people stand together, they will win. Liberty is to be won by those who would have it.

I agree that freedom and liberty are for all people. But America has no moral, ethical, or legal authority or obligation to take part in winning freedom of liberty for anyone but ourselves. I am the well-wisher of freedom and liberty to all, but the champion only of my own. This is one of the principles upon which America was built.

Humanities troubles come from humanity. When humans learn not to invade other countries or kill people simply because they live under different laws, or have a different view of what freedom or liberty mean, the world will be a better place.


You are entitled to your opinion, but not entitled to force it upon others.

You see no moral problems with invading and murdering thousands or millions of people because you are insane. You are a tyrant at heart and you think you have some god given right to kill people and to enforce whatever YOUR vision of freedom happens to be (which in this case is an unlibertarian nightmare). What you want to do is on a moral par with a scenario where China invaded America and "liberated" us from the oppression of democracy and capitalism. Their view of freedom and liberation is different from ours. They have absolutely zero moral or legal authority to invade, murder Americans, or to enforce what they believe to be freedom; nor does America have the legal or moral authority to do this to anyone else.


Stop using the term democracy and freedom interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Democracy isn't what those people want, or they would already have it. They don't need your help or that of the U.S. military to get it. The role of the U.S. military doesn't include spreading or diminishing democracy or to "liberate" people of other nations. You are mentally damaged enough to suggest that murdering people (and yes, it is murder) because you want them to live in a way that they haven't chosen for themselves is okey dokey and indicative of libertarianism. This is like saying you want to promote abstinence through rape. No part of what you believe is even close to being a billionth of libertarianism. The only thing you know about libertarianism is how to spell the word, and you probably have to look that up.


Wrong. Hitler, Stalin, etc. believed that THEIR VERSION of human liberty could best be spread by killing what they believed to be the enemies of liberty, like Jews. In short, they shared your exact philosophy. They wanted to "obliterate tyranny" by killing those they saw as enemies of it... in their insane and twisted little brains....like yours...only yours is smaller.


This is because, unlike you, I am a sane person with a grasp on reality and a comprehension of the world around me. I set protecting my own freedom and liberty and those of my countrymen above misusing the military to murder people and enforce so-called "freedom" at the point of a gun. Freedom is under constant attack right here in America. It's something you don't seem to grasp...a little something called personal responsibility. I am responsibile for my freedom and making sure my government doesn't infringe on my freedoms or those of my family or countrymen. People in other countries are responsible for their freedom and for making sure their government best represents them. I have no authority beyond my own borders to enforce what I believe to be freedom onto others who may have a different viewpoint. They have no authority to do that to us. The U.S. Government has no authority beyond the borders of the U.S.A., especially to practice nation building or democracy spreading.

Yes, the company I'm keeping is very unsavory. Characters like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, Harry Browne, every libertarian author in history, Jesus of Nazareth, etc...



You seem to know a lot about that mental disorder. Perhaps because you have this and many others. My self-esteem is well placed and has nothing at all to do with narcisissm. I'd say claiming that YOUR vision of freedom and liberty supercede those of millions of other people across the world and that this empowers you to muder people to force it on them is pretty damned narcisisstic.


Says the guy who supports wholesale murder and thinks his personal vision of freedom or liberty empower him to slaughter innocent others so he can force it on the people of other nations.


Sanity is something you know nothing about; nor is making a convincing argument.

You’re actually stupid enough to suggest that other nations not building a gigantic navy in order to fight ours means they support and agree with the insane idea that America should overthrow non-democratic nations? America's military is paid for by China. America borrows money to build this bloated and misused military. America spends more money on military spending than the next 20 militaries combined. Do other countries want to go into debt to fight an American military? Not unless they must. Why? Because they aren't insane people who think they have a duty or obligation to kill those who don't share the same form of government we do.


China has nothing to worry about our navy, and China paid for it anyway. Japan enjoys not paying for a military. They'd rather be under the bloated, oversized, and expensive American military.

Being a self-declared enemy of America is an invite for insane and idiotic assholes like you to misuse the military to attack them. America doesn't invade nations that actually pose a threat to us anymore. We only attack weak nations who have natural resources we want. When America steps on the wrong toes, which will be sooner than you think, the world will unite against us and no matter what you think of America's military, we will lose.

Your entire argument is nothing. Mine is as solid as a rock. You do nothing but lie, accuse me of the stupid tactics that you are guilty of, and trying to rationalize genocide.


This is an outright lie. The world doesn't trust America to only kill the bad guys. In fact the world now looks at America like the single most dangerous rogue nation on earth that attacks without justifiable cause against countries that posed no harm to it. Even our allies hate our guts now thanks to the ignorant ilk in the Bush administration who share your stupid ideas.

I don't desire it. In fact I desire the United States to stop being tyrannous. This is why I'm setting idiots like you straight, and demanding that the government abide by the Constitution and stop using our military for any reason other than to defend America.


Don't be so dismissive. The U.S. Government has indeed murdered, tortured, and imprisoned innocent American people and otherwise violated their rights.



Your dishonesty, and inability to both grasp reality and the essence of libertarianism tells me that you are as inhuman and tyrannical as they come. You are genuinely insane. You are only care about liberty, freedom, and humanity as much as Adolph Hitler. You have no clue whatsoever about humanity or reality for that matter. Those who want freedom will have it. Those who don't won't. Those who don't choose democracy may still be choosing freedom. Democracy and freedom are not synonymous. Neither you, nor the U.S. Government has any mandate, or authority to invade other nations to "liberate" people who live under a different system so you can force whatever you deem to be freedom onto them.

Seek the help of a team of psychologists for your narcissistic personality disorder, your delusions, and your pathological lying.

Cite please?

I think he's referring to the fact that China has bought a large share of the US government bonds used to finance the military.

Bingo!

China has long believed they were being helpful by returning boatloads of dollars to America by buying US government bonds. Unfortunately, this has further made Cheney, et al feel that massive deficits don't matter. If China did not buy so much American debt, then Cheney, et al would have to come to grips with a government without cash.

Well, the Highway Trust Fund has already been so depleted and having trouble meeting next month’s payments. States are complaining that Highway fund payments are no longer arriving in a timely manner. Even with China, et al massively buying American government debt, the government was still having cash flow problems in some locations. What happens if foreigners stop financing the George Jr administration? Well what do we stop funding? Infrastructure and education - or troops on the other side of the world?

The reason that George Jr (Cheney) could spend like drunken sailors? China, et al made Enron style accounting appear to be balanced. Without China, et al, the American government could not spend $2 trillion to bail out Wall Street.

Really, is that what the final tab will be? :mad:

It's currently just under $1trillion. This is what happens when accounting standards and regulation enforcement change to make Enron, et al acceptable and when government throws money at elite member of the economy (ie tax cuts, welfare to Halliburton) to make the economy look good.

Why not just pay everyone to rip up and replace their front lawn every year? It would have accomplished this same thing but made the little people richer.

BTW, the stock market goes down the year after a new Republican president gets elected. It happens every time. Can things get worse?

They can always get worse.

bold text mine

My question is, and I am starting out professing I am no expert on this subject, what happens when China calls in the loans? Are we really immune to a takeover? Will China own us?

Also, why did everyone in the know walk around with their heads up their asses until the crisis got THIS BAD? :mad: Why is this typical of the Bush administration? Until things hit rock bottom, they're counting birds in the sky or something.

I am less of an expert than S123,
What has congress done about anything - anything at all - anyone?
Oh thats right - they went on ANOTHER three week vacation.

They are not loans. For example, when America was on the verge of fiscal responsibility, we stopped selling 30 year bonds. But now that we must mortgage America's future to pay for fiascos (ie tax cuts to the rich, 50% of companies paying no taxes, “Mission Accomplished”), the Chinese, et al are buying America’s 30 year bonds.

Bond's are not mortgages. A bond promised to pay the holder years or decades later. However, China can choose to sell those bonds to others.

A more serious problem is so many American dollars held in overseas banks. What happens if the world decides to no longer buy oil in dollars? Suddenly the dollar has even less value. What happens when countries such as China fear the American dollar is overvalued? They dump dollars causing same problems.

Some say the lower dollar creates more American exports. They also forget that most of those exports are dependent on imports that would cost more. What would result is massive inequities in the American economy as businesses constantly change prices or scramble for new suppliers or customers.

Confused? Well it gets even more complex. This is only a snapshot of chaos should the American economy suddenly have less value to foreign dollar holders.

Those maybe three American companies every week being sold to foreigner? Just like in the 1970s, America had to sell itself to pay for the party and resulting hangover. Back then, the world's third largest industrial base was American owned foreign industries. We had to sell them off to pay for our fiscal mismanagement. What do we sell off this time?

Snapshots of what might happen. Appreciate why deficits do matter after Cheney is long gone. Many will forget to blame the economic hardships on Cheney just as so many forgot to blame Nixon and other bad management in 1979.

Thank you, tw. I appreciate the explanation; I know it is a complex issue but even with limited knowledge I know it is a very scary situation.

Speaking of Cheney, I must read "Angler" by Barton Gellman.

The depths of evil have reached some proportion, eh?

I don't believe for one whit that they were clueless. In fact, I believe that they knew the risk (of deregulating the games that helped to create this mess) and had this back-up plan ready to go. Wall Street is so deeply embedded in our government that they feel they can pretty much do as they please.

I am in no way whatsoever an expert on these matters. This opinion is just my gut reaction. But tell me...when they started to dish out thousands of ARM's to low income people, didn't they know what was going to happen? That must be why these 'assets' were sold off so quickly.

Absolutely. Note the "in the know" portion of my post. They chose to walk around with their heads up their asses and only acknowledge any problems when it has become so big that even the typical non-financial American notices it's effed up. They KNEW KNEW KNEW they would get bailed out no matter how badly they effed it up. Fuck the rest of us, is exactly what happens.

Yup, I was agreeing with you...:)

(Just sayin just in case)

:)

I know, I was just making sure, but also re-vamping my rant. I love a revamped rant, don't you? :)

Oh yeah...vamping a rant always deserves a 2nd go around.

:biggrinje

Getting bailed out was not even in their mind. As America graduates more bean counters and less product people, this mindset of decisions based on spread sheets sees no risk.

Our current administration contributed massively to this. For example, previously, investment banks could only hold 12 times debt for one dollar. They got the administration to permit 30 dollars debt for one dollar. Some may have been in the $40 debt to $1 equity. Why? This administration believed the economy was healthy only because spread sheets showed higher profits. That is the myth even promoted by Carly Fiorina in HP - or why bean counters make the worst leaders in industry and government.

NINJA - issuing mortgages without any Income or Job Apparent? That too comes from new rules due to a myth that all deregulation is good. Where regulations must be largest are where (historically) the greediest and dumbest congregate. Finance industry. Look sometime in the WSJ at the full page of stock brokers prosecuted every month. Criminal mindset is highest among these people which is also why every stockbroker earns well over $200,000 annually. Bean counters doing no work (No Income No Job Apparent) were making massive incomes.

They knew nothing because they did not have to know. Unfortunately, the people who created this mess will mostly walk away richest. That stock broker that does almost nothing complains that he lost 40% in this crash? So now he is worth $60million instead of $100million. Woe is he?

Our previous administration also contributed by putting lawyers in charge of Fannie Mae. No lawyers in charge of finance, please.

A few appropriate scapegoats of the current scandal are Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick.

Both were gone when the major problem in Fannie and Freddie were created. Sub-prime loans that once never exceeded 10% of the loans were suddenly increased to something like 25% of all loans starting 2004 - after Raines and Gorelick were long gone.

Major problem with so many institutions were the large number of sub-prime and other (ie NINJA) loans that were implemented about 2004 to *stimulate* a sagging economy even to people who should not have had those loans. We are now paying for that economic boom recreated only by throwing money at the economy - after Raines and Gorelick were gone. A problem created by the George Jr administration need to *stimulate* the economy.

But shouldn't these trained bean counters, more than anyone, see the risk of the voodoo acounting practices that have pervaded Wall Street? :confused:

Those trained bean counters were doing voodoo accounting because they could and because it was ordered by top management. Without any law enforcement to help them say "No", then bean counters even in AT&T, MCI, Enron, etc all had no choice but pervert the spread sheets. Yes, even AT&T was on the verge of bankruptcy when Sandy Weil was discretely told this by a lesser AT&T executive that AT&T could not meet their short term loan obligations.

BTW, how to get promoted? I will never forget that corporate president on the deck, while drunk, saying "____ makes the spread sheets say what they have to say." ____ knew why he had the #2 job. 85% of all problems are ...

Leaving the organization just before and just after a major accounting scandal, leaving it leaderless until 2 weeks ago.

Leaving Fannie and Freddie to do what George Jr has been doing for the past seven years? Pumping government money into the economy. We are now reaping those economic stimulus packages including a feast of free mortgage money and 30 to 1 debt to equity ratios.

Let's see. Raines and Gorelick left in 2004. George Jr's people could not find anyone to take the job for four years? Oh. With all those White House lawyers rewriting science, then no lawyers were available to replace Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick? Apparently.

As near as I can figure out, we're both right.

Like modern airline crashes, the crash can't be pinned down to any single failure, but a perilous combination of them. Starting with the S&L failure, the community reinvestment act, the sudden need for backed securities and the eagerness of the congress to give it to them, the greed, the nest of backed and unbacked securities behind the mortgage market. The desire to put more money in the market. The desire to get poorer Americans into home ownership. The Countrywide "special loans" and lobbying and wheeling and dealing to preserve their setup and keep getting rich. Fannie Mae pushing ARMs because it was the only way they could keep growing. (By 2004 92% of FNMA-backed loans were ARMs) The sudden SEC deregulation was the final burst of too much water over the hull.

Nobody was smart enough to predict the combination of failures and everybody wanted to protect their phoney-baloney jobs. One obvious truth is that government can't really be trusted to ensure securities too far, because there's too much money and power to be gained; and thus we could expect the sort of wheeling and dealing where everybody could get a little richer and blame was spread around thin enough not to point the finger at any single entity.

Demonstrated are some basic facts.

Any effort to fix an economy by throwing money at it; the economy will only take revenge with even more severe consequences.

Whereas money can be used to address isolated problems, the only solution for an economy in recession is to let companies go through bankruptcy early so as to fix their #1 problem - top management.

Deficits do matter.

Enron style accounting is still alive and well. The greatest reason credit market seizure - nobody could trust anyone else's spread sheets. Industries get the regulation they deserve. Historically, finance industry regulation was and should be massive since no other industry so worships "Greed is good" and so overpays their top management for doing so little.

Tax cuts without spending cuts simply guarantee even higher taxes or other equivalent economic punishment in the future. Warren Buffet was correct. There is no free lunch even though our government said otherwise six years ago. How many forgot $8billion of free money to the airline industry with no strings attached and no repayment required. How many saw increasing debts, saw current profits as high, and therefore assumed everything would be OK ten years later?

Always go to highest levels to find why all those other guilty parties exist.

Ross Perot said that if any company did accounting routinely done in the federal government, then all corporate officers would be jailed immediately.

Any industry that will not innovate until required to by government regulation deserves to be sold to foreigners OR terminated with the stockholders getting exactly what they deserved. There never was any reason for government to protect the auto industry, big steel, or airlines. Only thing that saves a company is the same thing that is the only purpose of that company - product innovation.

These problems were predicted. For example, The Economist front cover showed a falling brick labeled housing prices. Everyone knew the economy would be hurt by the housing market. Housing prices at 40% too high must eventually fall and typically fall hard - especially when government was trying to protect those high prices rather than address the problem. From the Economist of 16 Jun 2005: Enron made it obvious how corrupt accounting had become. But we did nothing for how long? Few would admit how massive mortgage backed secuirities had so contaminated the financial markets. The few who openly acknowledged it included a Senior VP of Merrill Lynch (who got fired for being honest) and Goldman Sachs (who hedged sufficiently to protect themselves).

Everyone know NINJAs were widespread. Everyone knew these problems would come back with negative consequences (those not blinded by greed). However nobody knew 'when'.

I remember a girl who asked about investing in the market in August 1987. It was obvious that the market would suffer a big downturn. The only problem - as I told her - was that I could not say if it would occur next month or next few years. The downturn was that obvious and inevitable. I recommended waiting to invest after the crash. That became the October 1987 crash. Nobody could predict 'when' the obvious would occur.

These problems were obvious. What people cannot say is when the inevitable will occur.

Bankruptcy is averted by perverting the spread sheets. This only permits a simpler problem to get worse - ie Enron. The sooner a symptom of bad management becomes obvious, then less damage results. Unfortunately, the past decade plus had simply subverted regulations that require honest spread sheets. This became most obvious when Harvey Pitts (SEC Commissioner) refused to accept a doubling of his budget by Congress. The 'powers that be' wanted 'less regulation'. Those same 'powers' literaly has to be embarrassed when Oklahoma filed suite against Enron - forcing the 'powers that be' to concede and prosecute Skilling and Lay.

Deregulation to permit spread sheet games has only made it even harder to predict "when".

Maybe this fits better in this thread - whatever. I'm sure the left will label it as right wing propaganda and the right will say its the absolute truth. As usual, I'm caught right in the middle. Like most of this stuff, I'm sure there is some truth to some of it. Everyone's too busy pointing fingers at each other to solve the problems.

I agree. People were talking, (and writing) "The Real Estate Bubble", for a hell of a long time. Everyone knows that "bubbles" inevitably pop, so like you said, it was just a matter of when.

But that said, the general public was mostly unaware how the mortgage market was polluting the other financial institutions, although the people whose business is the money game, and those that are supposed to be keeping an eye on them, sure as hell should have known what was happening. :mad:

Getting back on topic - sorta

Life Returns to Iraq's Streets

Thanks Classic.
It always helps to see the human face of people affected by conflict.
That chemists shop with the same brand of hair-dye I've used in the past really made me stop and think.

I hate the fact that different sects of the same religion kill eachother. Whether it's Sunni and Shi'ite or Catholic and Protestant. I hope those caught up in it manage to resolve their differences and rebuild their country - physically, politically and emotionally.