"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually, Usama was speaking on behalf of Faux News & the Republican Party.

They need foreign enemies to distract us from their domestic economic agenda, and he served them well.

The Republicans certainly pushed the wars, however I wouldn't be so quick to dump it all on them. The Democrats have been quite satisfied to let things continue on. There's not any serious talk of leaving Afghanistan and there's considerable support for the Patriot Act. Far more voted for it than against it. Obama is more of a Bush than Bush was with that and the warrantless wiretapping.

As far as I'm concerned they both are useless.

 

[Engineer]

Nevermind...was comparing 2010 instead of 2011.

 

[cubby1223]

This is like I was able to tour Fort Warren while in Boston last weekend, and learned much of it's past. The War of 1812 England attacked the U.S. economy with naval blockades along many of our harbors. Afterwards the U.S. government built a number of forts to protect harbors along the coastline, Fort Warren being the one protecting the Boston harbor. First opened in 1850, designed to combat wooden ships, but this was the time ironclads started being used. Once the fort was updated to combat ironclads, the ships now had new firepower that could blow through the original granite defense walls. The fort was restructured with concrete, and once completed now submarines were beginning to be used in combat. Refitted to lay mines throughout the harbor, and not soon after long-range missiles and bomber planes were the new weapons of warfare. And now the fort was completely obsolete.

In the nearly 100 years of operation, Fort Warren never once fired upon an enemy, nor had an enemy fire upon it. Therefore the construction and operation of the fort had negligible positive impact on the U.S. economy, correct?

 

[jman19]

Things are only going to get worse. Obama was a mirror image of Osama.

Amazingly, my opinion of you manages to become even lower with each post you make.

 

[Jaskalas]

What would you rather have? A dead bin Laden or a sound, vibrant economy?

A kill team is cheap, they don't cost $7 trillion. We could have had both.

You want to come down to forcing a choice, obviously an economy would help Americans more.

 

[Craig234]

The Republicans certainly pushed the wars, however I wouldn't be so quick to dump it all on them. The Democrats have been quite satisfied to let things continue on. There's not any serious talk of leaving Afghanistan and there's considerable support for the Patriot Act. Far more voted for it than against it. Obama is more of a Bush than Bush was with that and the warrantless wiretapping.

As far as I'm concerned they both are useless.

The king of false equivalency.

 

[Tom]

Considering both wars, over the course of 10 years, have cost less combined than the last budget deficit, I'd have to agree with PokerGuy.

The government is bleeding America, not terrorists.

We do it to ourselves, not the "government". We elect people because they promise us free government, ie taxes too low to pay for the services we want.

Things are not that out of whack; taxes need to be a bit higher, and we can't afford all these wars. And we need to cut the cost of healthcare to be more in line with other countries, vis a vi cost as a percentage of gdp.

 

[Craig234]

There was an enormous impact of 9/11 on the US economy.

And that was one of the primary goals of the attack. Listen to bin Laden discuss the attack, and he talks probably more than anything about the costs it puts on us.

He's almost giddy, as a financially knowledgeable person, counting off the cost.

Rachel Maddow did a good segment on this, replaying bin Laden, reminding how much causing us to harm our economy was part of the plan.

I think the 9/11 attacks were largely about getting us to attack a Muslim nation in response, both to turn the Muslim world against us and to cost us a fortune.

The costs not only brought the economy to a standstill immediately after the attacks, ended all air travel right after them, the economic stoppage had big chain effects.

The government had to provide big bailouts to industries to keep them going; this was a direct cause of the Fed putting interest rates at historic lows - but it kept them there.

A good case can be made that an unintended side effect of 9/11, with the near zero interest rates, was fueling the housing bubble that created the opportunity for the Wall Street schemes and overinvestment in real estate derivates that caused the worst economic crash since the great depression.

This in addition to the long-term inflation of homeland (a term new for the US from 9/11) security and military spending increases and the wars.

The cost of Iraq, which wasn't really possible without 9/11, has been estimated at $3 trillion by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

My opinion on 9/11 was 'do not overreact to this, don't change America, treat it as a police problem and let the military go after the perpetrators specifically'.

Instead, we re-elected a terrible president who did a lot to hurt our economy and our culture.

No one likes to admit 'the bad guy caused a big harm'; we'd like to say bin Laden caused less economic harm than he wanted. But I don't think that's correct.

In large part, as it usually is, we caused probably most of the harm ourselves. The #1 strategy of terrorists IMO is trying to trigger an over-response.

How do you even put a price on things like 'the US losing decades of global goodwill built up with the aggressive and illegal invasion of Iraq', the impact around the world?

The impact on the Muslim world being more wary of the US? Of problems yet to possibly come from things like our permanent presence in Iraq as a base?

 

[dmcowen674]

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

The earliest date I can find for that Osama bin Laden quote is 2004. At the start of 2004, the national debt was $7T. Since then, it's more than doubled to over $14T.

What would you rather have? A dead bin Laden or a sound, vibrant economy?

You do realize it is by Republican design to bankrupt the country, it makes the rich even richer.

Mission Accomplished

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The king of false equivalency.

The Queen of Denial.

I know the history and I know you defend one side that supports the status quo. You must. When you posted those complimentary looking photos of Obama, that is what was important to you. Where is your outrage at his lying I linked to? Nowhere. Oh the Republicans this and the corporations that, but real outrage against your party who voted 31 to 18 for the Patriot Act? Oh, but those Republicans voted even more for it as if that justifies everything. But it does just that in your mind. Instead of letting them have it for doing so you point to everyone else. Your most likely response is "well there are things I don't like, but those REPUBLICANS.

Well both parties are an abomination. Neither deserves office, but you'l lwith respond how wonderful your version of the religious right is. You get used again and again just like them with never a chance of making an 18-31 vote a reality. But while you are not able to make a real difference, while your party doesn't keep faith, you have a better illusion of relevancy with the Dems, and so a soul is sold for a vote.

Your party, especially your photogenic president, supports the last administrations policies and would seek to expand some of them.

You think there's an equivalency? Excrimant from a donkey and an elephant aren't identical but don't try to say one is a rose because it stinks a bit less which is just what you do.

 

[Craig234]

The Queen of Denial.

And there we have a trashy cheap shot.

Of course, I stopped reading your post at that point, you lost any right to read any further with that idiocy.

The question is, do I want to extend that indefinitely to other posts. I'm leaning yes.

 

[Zebo]

They're not related. What is related is cutting taxes when a war is on. Insanity never done before.

Oh and this war is just getting started. Better get used to it. In 5 years Taliban will control pakistans nukes and many of these countries going through so called Arab Springs are nothing more than fundamentalism redivivus. We will quit for awhile and they will come for vengeance like you have never imagined.

If you doubt what I say listen to what they say (FF to 34 min until end)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kill-capture/?autoplay

 

[Zebo]

There was an enormous impact of 9/11 on the US economy.

And that was one of the primary goals of the attack. Listen to bin Laden discuss the attack, and he talks probably more than anything about the costs it puts on us.

He's almost giddy, as a financially knowledgeable person, counting off the cost.

Rachel Maddow did a good segment on this, replaying bin Laden, reminding how much causing us to harm our economy was part of the plan.

I think the 9/11 attacks were largely about getting us to attack a Muslim nation in response, both to turn the Muslim world against us and to cost us a fortune.

The costs not only brought the economy to a standstill immediately after the attacks, ended all air travel right after them, the economic stoppage had big chain effects.

The government had to provide big bailouts to industries to keep them going; this was a direct cause of the Fed putting interest rates at historic lows - but it kept them there.

A good case can be made that an unintended side effect of 9/11, with the near zero interest rates, was fueling the housing bubble that created the opportunity for the Wall Street schemes and overinvestment in real estate derivates that caused the worst economic crash since the great depression.

This in addition to the long-term inflation of homeland (a term new for the US from 9/11) security and military spending increases and the wars.

The cost of Iraq, which wasn't really possible without 9/11, has been estimated at $3 trillion by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

My opinion on 9/11 was 'do not overreact to this, don't change America, treat it as a police problem and let the military go after the perpetrators specifically'.

Instead, we re-elected a terrible president who did a lot to hurt our economy and our culture.

No one likes to admit 'the bad guy caused a big harm'; we'd like to say bin Laden caused less economic harm than he wanted. But I don't think that's correct.

In large part, as it usually is, we caused probably most of the harm ourselves. The #1 strategy of terrorists IMO is trying to trigger an over-response.

How do you even put a price on things like 'the US losing decades of global goodwill built up with the aggressive and illegal invasion of Iraq', the impact around the world?

The impact on the Muslim world being more wary of the US? Of problems yet to possibly come from things like our permanent presence in Iraq as a base?

I agree with this post 100%. We made a smallish problem (not to discount 3000 lives but it was a chump org could have been handled on the down low nasty assassination stuff you probably wouldn't go in for but still) into a big fuckin problem.

 

[dali71]

And there we have a trashy cheap shot.

Of course, I stopped reading your post at that point, you lost any right to read any further with that idiocy.

The question is, do I want to extend that indefinitely to other posts. I'm leaning yes.

It's much easier to feign offense than to deal with the truth. :biggrin:

 

[Craig234]

It's much easier to feign offense than to deal with the truth. :biggrin:

You're an easy call for ignore.

Princess.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And there we have a trashy cheap shot.

Of course, I stopped reading your post at that point, you lost any right to read any further with that idiocy.

The question is, do I want to extend that indefinitely to other posts. I'm leaning yes.

King of false Equivalence
Queen of Denial
Queen of the Nile.

It's called a pun. Whether you read the rest or not is rather inconsequential. The point is really more general than you and therefore put out for the consideration of others.

 

[Fenixgoon]

unless OBL started hanging out with guys on wall street and telling them to ruin our economy, then no, no relationship whatsoever IMO

 

[spittledip]

And there we have a trashy cheap shot.

Of course, I stopped reading your post at that point, you lost any right to read any further with that idiocy.

The question is, do I want to extend that indefinitely to other posts. I'm leaning yes.

Man, he is right on. I don't comprehend how people don't see that the parties are made up of members from the same country club. The only hope for this country is to shut that club down.

 

[Zebo]

Ditto..Both Craig and Jhhnnnn look at the world with party blinders. Nothing unusual about that, right & left wing is stacked top to the bottom with them but from smarter people I expect more.

 

[Craig234]

King of false Equivalence
Queen of Denial
Queen of the Nile.

It's called a pun. Whether you read the rest or not is rather inconsequential. The point is really more general than you and therefore put out for the consideration of others.

OK, if it was a pun rather than a trashy cheap shot, that's not as bad. It was unclear which from the context. The fact is wrong and nonsensical isn't offensive.

 

[Craig234]

Man, he is right on. I don't comprehend how people don't see that the parties are made up of members from the same country club. The only hope for this country is to shut that club down.

I wouldn't know, since I hadn't read his post, but you are only partly right.

The progressive caucus isn't in the 'country club' much. You don't find Bernie Sanders, Lynn Woolsey, or quite a number of them in the 'country club' over the people.

Other parts of the Democratic Party are indeed members. This is why the progressive agenda - say, single-payer healthcare the progressive support - doesn't get passed.

There's a majority between the Republicans who are all, practically, representing the corrupt interests, and the large part of Democrats who are.

Your 'shut that club down' doesn't really say anything. You haven't changed the power structure behind it. It's firmly entrenched.

You need to do things like get the money out of the elections, that give an advantage to those interests and let them dictate to the politicians who need their money.