A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From oldsendbrdy's workspace   

Have We Lost the "War on Terror", and Just Don't Know It Yet?

I have sometimes wondered why we haven’t been attacked by al Qaeda since 9-11. Perhaps it is because our guardians have always found out their nefarious plots. Perhaps this is proof that God is on “our” side rather than theirs. Or perhaps they have no need to do so.

I sometimes wonder why they don’t try to assassinate one of the Presidential candidates. But if they believe that a Republican President would be worse for their cause than a Democratic President then they would not wish to do this (since my knee-jerk reaction along with that of millions of other Americans would be to vote a President in who would kill them until there was none left to kill).

It might be in their interest to allow a Democratic President to occupy the Oval Office. I am by nature an admirer of the Democratic Party (for my economic interests), but I would be the first to admit that I would not trust any of those who now aspire to lead this country from that party to lead it in time for war. I haven’t trusted a Democratic President to lead us in time of war since Lyndon Johnson. I guess this is one of the reasons I have been torn in my support of this party. I love their economic outlook, but distrust their ability to lead this country in time of war.

But the Republican Party has tried to give us both “guns and butter”. They are admired by those who have to run their businesses in this time. They have borrowed against a future “time of plenty” when we will have won “The War on Terror” (in 10 or 20 or 30 years), and until then all we have to do is “sit tight”, and keep the economy going.

I heard one fellow talking tonight about how “recessions” used to be part of the cycle of business. You got your job, worked until a recession came, perhaps lost your job, and got another during the next business cycle. But how did you live when you lost your job? If you were “smart” (or lucky), you had saved money to make it through to the next cycle. So you should have enough money saved up to last you for three months. Well, I don’t. I don’t know anybody who does. Or maybe you have. But you (fool that you are) put it into the stock market, and now you have only a portion of what you “saved”. Somebody made money, but not you, fool that you are.

So maybe al Qaeda doesn’t need to attack us. All they have to do is wait and watch while we spend our national wealth into bankruptcy. While Communist China takes on more of the physical production of the wealth of the world (the TVs, the toasters, and even the cars) some of us will produce the software that makes it run more efficiently. But what will the rest of us do? Are we even needed except as “consumers”?

created by oldsendbrdy on Jan 25, 2008 at 11:04:46 pm     Comments: 9

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Interesting.

The companies now , have no loyalty to this country, only contempt for its people. Ford just announced buyouts of all their hourly workers, so they can hire cheaper ones. The new cars , hydrogen and electric ones, will be made overseas and in Mexico.

But dear god man the republicans are no better at making war. In fact this bunch lied their asses off to go to war to secure oil contracts for the multinational oil companies, and Hunt Oil, and Exxon, and BP.

This "cycle" of work and recession will be magnified by about 9 trillion dollars in debt. And those little checks that the govt is sending out are nothing more than a burden on our childrens backs. The republicans have arguably commited treason by LYING to the nation to take our troops into war in Iraq. Why? Because they are oil men, even condi is an oil exec. They wanted those oil contracts. So they made the country's National Energy Policy, a state secret. The secret is/was that they would invade Iraq in order to secure this country's future is full of their oil, instead of hydrogen cars, or electric cars. And they made sure that they and their pals would be the ones that get rich on it. I think they even threw in a little religion, you gotta have that for a good war. Lots of flag waving too.

The firemen on 911 were heroes too, till they got sick,, then they were fakers. Too bad the USEPA lied to them about what they were breathing.

There's never been a more blatantly pre-emptive war by the U.S., the rest aren't even close. Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, but nothing beats this one. More lies were told to go to war, more intel ignored, than is believable. Trust a republican to go to war???

Oh, and those smart bombs that are saving our soldiers lives, the programs that made them happen were pushed through by Jimmy Carter, against many republican voices in congress.

Maybe we should be looking for a party that considers the peoples welfare above the corporations greed. John Edwards might be a good start. But heck, people would rather watch NASCAR and football.

This war was planned in the late 1990's by people who came to be on bush's cabinet. Search on PNAC report on google.

If we had continued Jimmy Carters plan to reduce oil consumption by making cars that ran on alternative fuels, and they did make some, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, and 911 might not have happened,, in fact it probably would not have happened.

Reagan stopped funding the projects when he took office. NASA Glenn has a pickup truck in their parking lot, it runs on a "stirling engine". It crossed the country and got 35 mpg, and their car got 40. The pickup and the car are there today rusting in the parking lot. Ford made a stirling engine too, stopped work on it when reagan took over.
What will we fight wars over next? We've had spice wars, will we have a war for lima beans next? For water? For turnips. Hell, if the turnip company donates enough money, I guess we will have a war for turnips.

posted by prime3end on Jan 26, 2008 at 12:06:32 am     #



All they have to do is wait and watch while we spend our national wealth into bankruptcy

Actually, this line of argument has already been officially established by al-Queda:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/29/terror/main652373.shtml

Cost of Iraq War:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

posted by McCaskey on Jan 26, 2008 at 01:50:15 am     #



We are being bled to death financially, just as bin laden has gamed it out.

posted by McCaskey on Jan 26, 2008 at 01:56:26 am     #



The simple answer to the question is: yes. Of course, the futher question might be raised: when and where did we fight it?

posted by Man_with_the_muck_rake on Jan 26, 2008 at 10:01:22 am     #



So we are 9 trillion dollars in “debt”. I can never figure that out. Money is being spent obviously. Taxes aren’t being collected to match the money being spent obviously. So how is the short-fall being made up? Are we selling bonds, and to whom? And isn’t a bond (with its interest) more expensive in the long run than any tax we might collect now? If you look at the fact that “only” a half billion is being spent on the Iraq war, then where is the rest of the debt coming from? Has anyone gamed this?

If it is money being paid out in social security should we just end that, and require these elderly to either rely on their younger siblings or children for aid, or return to the workforce? Should our government be run like a business, and end healthcare for retirees? After all, this is just business, nothing is illegal or immoral about it.

If Ron Paul gets elected (not much of a chance) we will see the end of the war in Iraq (hopefully), and perhaps a return to the gold standard. That will be interesting. I wonder, if I can’t get gold, whether I could barter my labor for groceries.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 26, 2008 at 11:09:06 am     #



Got this out of the website above for cost of War in Iraq:
Taxpayers in Congressional District 9 (Kaptur) will pay $262 million for the cost of the Iraq War in FY 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

87,835 People with Health Care

That would have probably provided most of the people in our congressional district who don't have insurance with health care. Of course, the way things are going most people get health care through their employees. At some point in the near future only key executives will probably receive health care from their corporations. The rest of us will have to band together (perhaps in affinity groups), and get the best deal we can.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 26, 2008 at 11:16:48 am     #



So how is the short-fall being made up? Are we selling bonds, and to whom? And isn’t a bond (with its interest) more expensive in the long run than any tax we might collect now?

Our debt is funded by bonds. These bonds can be held by anyone individually or through institutions. In fact, the American public funds a large percentage of the United States' debt as do foreign individuals, corporations, and governments. The whole idea of running a public debt is that the debt will be invested and create a greater return over time than the cost of purchasing that debt through interest.

For example:
Let's say the US government takes a $100 loan through a bond and has to pay back $110 at the end of 5 years. The hope is that $100 was invested in some community good (roads, education, etc) during that give years and result in tax revenue (through increased economic activity) of at least $110.

I personally believe that doesn't happen most of the time, especially when we "invest" in government entitlement programs. Investing in roads or infrastructure probably wins out most of the time (with obvious exceptions like the ridiculous Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska). Think of how much it cost to build the interstate system, and then think of all the economic activity that is enabled because of its presence.

and perhaps a return to the gold standard.

People have complained about the lack of a gold standard since it left us 30-something years ago (actually it partially departed long before that since we didn't have enough gold to match our wealth). Look at the economic cycles before and after the switch from the gold standard and try to formulate some argument that people are better off with a gold standard. Look at inflation before and after the gold standard left for good and tell me when inflation was higher.

posted by HeyHey on Jan 26, 2008 at 03:03:50 pm     #



posted by charlatan on Jan 26, 2008 at 06:50:00 pm     #



HeyHey, I don’t have much faith in a “gold standard” myself. I have always wondered about this scenario (repeated thousands of times): a person begins to worry about his wealth so he finds a safe place to stash it (perhaps in a hole in his backyard), and dies without revealing its location. If enough people do this isn’t the supply of gold diminished, and the value of the remainder “inflated”? And then someone with a metal detector finds the gold, and reintroduces it in to the supply? If this is done enough times does this result in the “deflation” of the value of gold? Gold cannot be circulated as readily as harder metals. It’s only value would be to some fool who might look upon its shining beauty, and actually value it. Gold leaves me cold. A dollar in gold could easily end up as a dime of value with enough wear and tear. I’d rather have an oil well in my backyard than a gold mine.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jan 26, 2008 at 11:45:24 pm     #