. May 12, 2009 SouthAmerica: On May 6, 2009 Charlie Rose interviewed current Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on his TV show, and the following day he interviewed Neel Kashkari, the former Assistant Treasury Secretary in charge of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Here are some of my postings on the comments section of these shows and some of my replies to some on the other people regarding my postings: ***** Part 1 of 3 American capitalism has died a sudden death in 2008. Just God knows what kind of economic system we have today in the United States. Today the US government controls 90 percent of the mortgage market in the US. The US government also controls a large chunk of the banking system in the US. The US government was forced to nationalize the largest insurance company in the United States. The estimated U.S. GDP for 2009 is estimated to be around $ 13.5 trillion dollars. In April 2008 I started a thread at the Elite Trader Economic Forum - The US economy and the real GDP â And in that thread I explain why my friend and I believe that after you adjust the US government fairy tale figure the real GDP of the US economy might be on the range of US$ 9 to US$ 10 trillion â the difference between these figures are all the meaningless adjustments that they make to inflate the GDP figures calculated by the US government to show a better performance and a larger economy than the reality. Letâs be conservative and after we estimate the real GDP of the US economy for 2009 after the number is adjusted for the meaningless information that they add to the GDP figures on a regular basis, and on top of that we take in consideration the economic and financial implosion that we had in the US economy because of a deep recession plus massive deleveraging with record high foreclosures, exploding unemployment, massive financial losses of all kinds â we are lucky if the US GDP still in the range of $ 9 to $ 10 trillion dollars in 2009. As I mentioned above the US government controls a very large portion of the financial area of the US economy. And the US government budget for 2010 is estimated to be around $ 3.5 trillion dollars â Thatâs a very large percentage of the United States GDP. It is just a matter of time for Zombie banks such as Citigroup, and Bank of America, plus the US auto industry to be fully nationalized. Without massive US government intervention the rest of the US economy would have spanned completely out of control in a downward spiral. For all practical purposes today we have an artificial economy and financial system in the United States that canât survive without massive US government intervention in the financial and other markets to keep the US economy from sinking into the abyss. The mainstream media in the United States canât connect the dots even to save their lives and Americans make the same old mistakes over and over again, it seems to me that they are immune from learning anything from past experiences and they make the same mistakes over and over again. Americans learnt nothing from the prior experiences with companies such as Enron, and WorldCom to just mention a few catastrophes. The US government is trying to do everything they can by artificial means to keep the US financial markets from falling into the Abyss. 1) They are pumping trillions of US dollars (real money and US government guarantees) to keep assets in the US artificially higher than they would be under normal free market circumstances. 2) They are changing accounting rules (mark to market) to keep massive losses from being booked into the P&L â and to keep investors who invested in banks and other financial institutions in the dark. In December 2007 I posted the following on the Elite Trader economics forum regarding the US pension funds system: A few years ago the Bush administration came up with a great idea about how to fix the pension system in the United States. Now talking about a complete lack of common sense that eventually it will cost trillions of US dollars and it will have a major impact in the future of retirement in the United States â some moronic people changed the rules regarding pension funds a few years ago and they started letting the pension funds invest US government insured money in hedge funds as a quick fixer up to the pension funds that were underfunded to start with. These fools let the pension funds invest in hedge funds in the illusion that these hedge funds above average returns would save the day for the pension funds. (The people involved in that kind of rescue plan for the pension plans are a bunch of morons who will cause the pension funds to lose even more money and be even in worse shape than before.) I will not be surprised to find out that the hedge funds lost a fortune in new pension money that were gambled in the current sub prime mess â I am saying new pension money because the pension plans lost 2 trillion dollars during the last telecom and dot.com meltdown. I wonder how much government insured pension money has been lost by the hedge funds in the current sub prime scandal? I used to believe that the free market and Wall Street were the best vehicles for allocating scarce resources â but today I know that all that it was just a bunch of bullshit - and all I have to do is look around and remember a few fiascos that have cost trillions of US dollars of mostly pension money that disappeared forever here in the US such as: the savings and loans debacle of the 1980âs, the telecom and dot.com meltdown of the year 2000 and the complete lack of common sense related to the latest sub prime scandal. There is one thing I know for sure these trillions of US dollar that have melted away are moneys that millions of Americans who still are working today are counting on that money in the future as part of the pension money to survive and they think that their money have been invested in a safe place. Millions of Americans are going to have a nasty surprise regarding their pension money in the coming years. Wall Street lost trillions in the dot.com fiasco, then they moved on and they raided the pension system of Americans. Then they took people from around the world for a ride with the sub prime scandal. Then they moved on and took the Foreign Sovereign Investment Funds for a ride. Then Wall Street started running out of suckers to take them for a ride and in the last year Wall Street finally started setting up its next victim to milk it to the bone â the US government. Instead of nationalizing the Zombie banks immediately and cleaning up the balance sheet of these institutions of the toxic assets over a period of time at a considerable expense for the US taxpayer the Geithner plan is going to cost the taxpayer many times over the current losses since the hedge funds, private equity firms and other bottom feeders are going to take the US government for a ride and they are going to leverage the losses many times over and the US taxpayer is going to be left holding the bag for these scoundrels. The Geithner toxic assets plan is a plan to screw the US taxpayer to the tune of trillions of US dollars and the hedge funds, private equity firms and other bottom feeders are going to laugh all the way to the bank and they will make a ton of money at the expense of these fools who are running these US government money give way programs. The swindlers in Wall Street set their eyes on their next victim â the US taxpayer â and in the process they managed to get the US government to give them more casino chips for them to continue their game through trillions of US dollars in new US government guarantees of all kinds, massive bailouts, and a transfer of trillions of dollars of toxic assets and losses to the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. .
. Part 2 of 3 I can see by your comments that you still believe in Fairy Tales, but I want to remind you that the last 2 world superpowers were not beaten on the battlefield â the English Empire and the Soviet Empire â they died a slow death - massive military over expenditure around the world does it every time. Today the US government has over $ 11 trillion dollars in cumulative outstanding debt. And Ben Bernanke has added trillion of dollars in new liabilities and US government guarantees to the US government balance sheet. The debt related to the baby boom generation is finally coming due and they will cost over $ 70 trillion dollars to the US government in the coming years. ***** It is a very sad state of affairs - Living on borrowed money from foreigners and at the same time thinking that they are very wealthy and have the right to waste all that borrowed money. Since George W. Bush became president on January 20, 2001 the US government added to its outstanding debt $ 5 trillion dollars. And it is no coincidence, but as you can see by the enclosed actual figures the total adjusted amount of US defense spending during the 8-years of the Bush administration was over US$ 4 trillion dollar. My question is: for how many more years do you think foreigners are going to continue funding the defense spending of the United States? Never mind foreigners funding American military adventures around the world â who is going to fund all the trillions and trillions of dollars in massive US domestic expenses that are coming due? *** As of Date - US Government Total Public Debt Outstanding 05/07/2009 $11,256,266,640,050.20 01/16/2009 $10,628,881,485,510.23 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49 09/28/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 01/19/2001 $5,727,776,738,304.64 Total public debt outstanding on 01/19/2001 was $5,727,776,738,304.64 and since George W. Bush became president on January 20, 2001 the US government added to its outstanding debt $ 5 trillion dollars. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np ****** Year - Interest expense paid by US government on its outstanding debt 2009 $193,437,580,154.01 (Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2009 to the end of April 2009) 2008 $451,154,049,950.63 2007 $429,977,998,108.20 2006 $405,872,109,315.83 2005 $352,350,252,507.90 2004 $321,566,323,971.29 2003 $318,148,529,151.51 2002 $332,536,958,599.42 2001 $359,507,635,242.41 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np ***** United States government actual budget figures during the 8-year Bush administration. United States Government Annual Budget during the Bush administration. Each year, on the first Monday in February, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year: United States federal budget, 2009 - $3.0 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush) United States federal budget, 2008 - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush) United States federal budget, 2007 - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush) United States federal budget, 2006 - $2.6 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush) United States federal budget, 2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush) United States federal budget, 2004 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush) United States federal budget, 2003 - $2.1 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush) United States federal budget, 2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total US government Budget for period year 2001 to year 2008 = US$ 20 trillion. The cumulative total actual US Government budget for the 8-year period of the Bush administration was US$ 20 trillion dollars. ************** Here is Bushesâ actual military spending - this does not include ANY costs related to Afghanistan or Iraq as they are all in supplemental spending bills: For Fiscal Year 2008 it is $481.4 billion For Fiscal Year 2007 it is $470.0 billion For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion. For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion. For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $ 296.0 billion Note: The Iraq and Afghanistan supplementary spending as of end December 2008 = over $ 650 billion. -------------------------------------------------------- Total Bush administration actual defense spending for 8-year period 2001 to 2008 = US$ 3,898 billion Plus other supplementary amounts that the government requested the total adjusted amount for defense spending for the 8-years of the Bush administration it will reach over the US$ 4 trillion dollar level. Note: The cumulative total actual US Government budget for the 8-year period of the Bush administration was US$ 20 trillion dollars and the actual defense spending for the 8-years was US$ 4 trillion dollar equal to 20 percent of the total. ***** Here is some further reality check for you: USA Today - March 20, 2009 â$ 1 trillion deficits estimated for each of the next 10 yearsâ â¦The new Congressional Budget Office figures predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the administration predicted in its budget just last month. ⦠Even so, Orszag acknowledged that if the CBO projections prove accurate, Obama's budget would produce deficits that could not be sustained. "Deficits in the, let's say, 5% of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios that would ultimately not be sustainable," Orszag told reporters. Deficits so big put upward pressure on interest rates as the government offers more attractive interest rates to attract borrowers. "I think deficits of 5% (of GDP) are unsupportable," said economist Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-20-federal-deficit_N.htm ***** As of Date - US Government Total Public Debt Outstanding Estimated figures: 09/30/2019 $ 21.3 trillion dollars (estimate) ($12 + 9.3) 09/30/2009 $ 12 trillion dollars (estimated figure) Actual figures: 05/07/2009 $11,256,266,640,050.20 09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49 09/28/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 01/19/2001 $5,727,776,738,304.64 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np ***** YEAR â U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2001 - $ 10.1 trillion dollars 2002 - $ 10.4 trillion dollars 2003 - $ 11.0 trillion dollars 2004 - $ 11.7 trillion dollars 2005 - $ 12.4 trillion dollars 2006 - $ 13.2 trillion dollars 2007 - $ 13.8 trillion dollars 2008 - $ 14.3 trillion dollars Source: http://www.bea.gov/ Actual figures by: Bureau of Economic Analysis ***** YEAR â U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2009 - $ 14.1 trillion dollars 2010 - $ 14.6 trillion dollars 2011 - $ 15.2 trillion dollars 2012 - $ 16.0 trillion dollars 2013 - $ 16.7 trillion dollars 2014 - $ 17.4 trillion dollars 2015 - $ 18.1 trillion dollars 2016 - $ 18.9 trillion dollars 2017 - $ 19.6 trillion dollars 2018 - $ 20.4 trillion dollars 2019 - $ 21.2 trillion dollars Source: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10014 Estimated Figures 2009 â 2019 by: Congressional Budget Office as of March 2009 ***** Note: I want to bring to your attention that the global economy collapsed in 2008 and we had a massive global economic meltdown â but by looking at the official US government statistics for U.S. GDP you would not know that we had such an economic and financial crisis affecting the United States economy. The above USA Today article said: â"Deficits in the, let's say, 5% of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios that would ultimately not be sustainable," Orszag told reporters.â And that statement was based on the above Fairy Tale figures for U.S. GDP that have been published by the US government. If you want to learn the truth about the real US GDP then check the following site: The US economy and the real GDP http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126048 In a Nutshell: At the end of the day a more realistic figure for the actual GDP for the US economy for 2009 is estimated to be around $ 10 trillion dollars and not the Fairy Tale figure published by the US government of $ 14.1 trillion dollars. There's a major disconnect between what is happening in the US economy and the wishful thinking statistics being published by the US government all the time about GDP, unemployment and so on... ***** Wall Street Journal May 9, 2009 President Obama unveiled a budget Thursday with a 2010 price tag of $3.5 trillion financed with $1.2 trillion of new debt. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182588013102453.html .
. Part 3 of 3 The mainstream media in the United States canât connect the dots even to save their lives and Americans make the same old mistakes over and over again, it seems to me that they are immune from learning anything from past experiences and they make the same mistakes over and over again. Americans learnt nothing from the prior experiences with companies such as Enron, and WorldCom to just mention a few catastrophes. I thought some people on this forum would contest what I said on my prior posting on this thread such as the above fact, but I guess most of you must agree with me. Here is another example of how Americans are immune from learning anything from history â Americans learnt nothing about what happened to the Soviet Army in Afghanistan in the 1980âs. The Soviet army meltdown in Afghanistan snow balled into the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire. Very soon in 2009 the United States is going to have almost the same number of soldiers located in Afghanistan that the Soviets had when they got their ass kicked in Afghanistan in the 1980âs and resulted in the Soviets having to leave Afghanistan after they got humiliated and lost that war. ***** September 25, 2008 SouthAmerica: Last night I did watch the movie âCharlie Wilsonâs Warâ with Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman. They said right in the beginning of the movie that this movie was based on actual facts. The movie was very entertaining and very well done, but the movie left out completely a very important fact. Charlie Wilson was instrumental in supplying Stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan at that time. Here is what they left out of the movie: âIn Afghanistan the Mujahideen armed with stinger missiles supplied by the CIA they gave a very hard time to the Soviet army - Bin Laden became a stinger missile expert in this war earning the nom de guerre "The Archer." And people such as Bin Laden became a key in helping the Mujahideen win the war against the Soviet Union. At the end of the day the CIA provided the weapons and training to Osama bin Laden; the Stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan. The Archer became a stinger missile expert and he became so good that he helped shoot down most of the 89 Russian helicopters in a short period of time. At that time Osama Bin Laden became a Legend and a Hero of war in Afghanistan.â *** When I was watching that movie I wonder what kind of reaction the Russians would have today if they had the opportunity to watch that movie. I also wonder what kind lesson the Russians would have learnt from this movie that could be replicated today in Afghanistan? I also wonder if this story is going to have a follow up part 2 and also based on actual facts - and In a few years a Russian filmmaker decides to make a similar movie called âIvanovich Putinâs Warâ â how the KGB provided the weapons and training to Osama bin Laden; the Stinger missiles to shoot down American helicopters in Afghanistan. The Archer became a stinger missile expert and he once again he became so good that he helped shoot down most of the xxx American helicopters in a short period of time. Osama Bin Laden became a Legend and a Hero of war all over again in Afghanistan.â Interesting sequel - what goes around comes around⦠You also can name the new Russian movie the sequel to the American version - âAfghanistan the graveyard to former Superpowersâ. ********** July 30, 2006 SouthAmerica: The demise of a superpower happens over a long period of time â at least in the past for example the British Empire, the Soviet Empire, and so onâ¦. The Afghanistan war debacle was one of the last nails in the coffin for the Soviets. You said: âThe USSR didn't survive its defeat in Afghanistan but the USA survived its defeat in Vietnam.â But if you look around; Russia still over there and they did not disappear from the map of the globe. You donât die completely â the Russians, and the British still around. You have a major decline in economic terms, and you lose your status as a superpower. You lose your clout, and prestige in the eyes of other people. It is a question of perception from where you are looking. Regarding the US it is clear to me that the United States is declining very fast. Iraq will be very costly for the United States in many ways. In Afghanistan the Mujahideen armed with stinger missiles supplied by the CIA they gave a very hard time to the Soviet army - Bin Laden became a stinger missile expert in this war earning the nom de guerre "The Archer." And people such as Bin Laden became a key in helping the Mujahideen win the war against the Soviet Union. At the end of the day the CIA provided the weapons and training to Osama bin Laden; the Stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan. The Archer became a stinger missile expert and he became so good that he helped shutdown most of the 89 Russian helicopters in a short period of time. Osama Bin Laden became a Legend and a Hero of war in Afghanistan. .
. May 12, 2009 SouthAmerica: I just saw this article on Yahoo News - And the red ink is growing completely out of control. The GDP number that they are talking about on this article is the Fairy Tale figure published by the US government and not the actual U.S. GDP of around $ 10 trillion dollars. ***** âUS red ink rising even higher, to $1.8Tâ US red ink to top $1.8 trillion, 4 times record; gov't borrows 46 cents for every dollar spent Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer Associated Press - Monday May 11, 2009 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates. Budget office figures released Monday would add $89 billion to the 2009 red ink -- increasing it to more than four times last year's all-time high as the government hands out billions more than expected for people who have lost jobs and takes in less tax revenue from people and companies making less money. The unprecedented deficit figures flow from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout and the cost of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill -- as well as a seemingly embedded structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in. As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion, the White House says. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps. Just a few days ago, Obama touted an administration plan to cut $17 billion in wasteful or duplicative programs from the budget next year. The erosion in the deficit announced Monday is five times the size of those savings. For the current year, the government would borrow 46 cents for every dollar it takes to run the government under the administration's plan. In 2010, it would borrow 35 cents for every dollar spent. "The deficits ... are driven in large part by the economic crisis inherited by this administration," budget director Peter Orszag wrote in a blog entry on Monday. The developments come as the White House completes the official release of its $3.6 trillion budget for 2010, adding detail to some of its tax proposals and ideas for producing health care savings. The White House budget is a recommendation to Congress that represents Obama's fiscal and policy vision for the next decade. Annual deficits would never dip below $500 billion and would total $7.1 trillion over 2010-2019. Even those dismal figures rely on economic projections that are significantly more optimistic -- just a 1.2 percent decline in gross domestic product this year and a 3.2 percent growth rate for 2010 -- than those of private sector economists and the Congressional Budget Office. As a percentage of the economy, the measure economists say is most important, the deficit would be 12.9 percent of GDP this year, the biggest since World War II. It would drop to 8.5 percent of GDP in 2010. In the past three decades, deficits in the range of 4 percent of GDP have caused Congress and previous administrations to launch efforts to narrow the gap. The White House predicts deficits equaling 2.9 percent of the economy within four years. Polling data suggest Americans are increasingly worried about mounting deficits and debt. An AP-GfK poll last month gave Obama relatively poor grades on the deficit, with just 49 percent of respondents approving of the president's handling of the issue and 41 percent disapproving. By contrast, Obama's overall approval rating was 64 percent, with just 30 percent disapproving. "Even using their February economic assumptions -- which now appear to be out of date and overly optimistic -- the administration never puts us on a stable path," said Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group that advocates budget discipline. "The president ... understands the critical importance of fiscal discipline. Now we need to see some action." For the most part, Obama's updated budget tracks the 134-page outline he submitted to lawmakers in February. His budget remains a bold but contentious document that proposes higher taxes for the wealthy, a hotly contested effort to combat global warming and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all. Meanwhile, the congressional budget plan approved last month would not extend Obama's signature $400 tax credit for most workers -- $800 for couples -- after it expires at the end of next year. Obama's "cap-and-trade" proposal to curb heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions is also reeling from opposition from Democrats from coal-producing regions and states with concentrations of heavy industry. Under cap-and-trade, the government would auction permits to emit heat-trapping gases, with the costs being passed on to consumers via higher gasoline and electric bills. Also new in Obama's budget details are several tax "loophole" closures and increased IRS tax compliance efforts to raise $58 billion over the next decade to help finance his health care measure. The money would make up for revenue losses stemming from lower-than-hoped estimates for his proposal to limit wealthier people's ability to maximize their itemized deductions. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-re...04529.html?sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode= .
I don't think your analogy holds up well regarding the different attackers in Afghanistan. If the US supplied stinger missles to the Mujahadeen then the US defeated the Russians with a proxy army. Who is the counterpart to the US in the current situation? Iran maybe, they were supplying the road bombs in Iraq, but basically, we can stop the flow of oil out of Iran and they will dry up and blow away... In the past the US army has destroyed any and all comers when the political restraints are removed... including the Viet Cong in Vietnam. The current administration will likely do what previous Democrat administrations have done, turn the military efforts into micro managed politically driven psychological torture for all involved instead of clear victories and some nation building... If the US gets out of Iraq they can get out of Afghanistan and Pakistan that much sooner. Hopefully that is doable... Regarding the economic comments, I've been reading the same stuff in the Reader's Digest for fifty years.. I do recommend people get ready for the worst case scenario but not dwell on it too much...
It's simple math, really. Get ready for the worst case scenario - higher taxes and 'fees,' a shrinking economy, a debasing of the USD (whether it happens this fall or in two years is nearly irrelevant unless you're a commodity or currency trader with active bets), and a much, much lower standard of living. The wild card question that remains to be seen is whether India and China (and Germany and Japan) can grow without our middle class buying a huge % of the goods and services they produce (we consume well over 1/3 of China's total output - how will they cope if that drops to 20% or 10%???).
. May 12, 2009 SouthAmerica: Here are some potential replacements for Gen. David McKiernan in Afghanistan â General Motors, General Electric, but when we take in consideration the location and the potential outcome of this war, then the best qualified based on prior practical experience - the best option at this time it would be General George Armstrong Custer. ***** âUS fires top general in Afghanistan as war worsensâ By PAULINE JELINEK and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers Associated Press â Monday, May 12, 2009 WASHINGTON â Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the commander of the Afghanistan war Monday, saying the Obama administration needed "fresh thinking" to turn around the war against a resurgent Taliban. Gen. David McKiernan was replaced after less than a year in the job. The new commander will be Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, also an Army officer but with experience as a leader of special forces. McKiernan has a more conventional background. "Today we have a new policy set by our new president. We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership also is needed," Gates said at a news conference. McKiernan issued a short statement saying his time in Afghanistan made him proud to be an American soldier. "All of us, in any future capacity, must remain committed to the great people of Afghanistan," he said. McKiernan's exit comes as more than 21,000 additional U.S. forces begin to arrive in Afghanistan, dispatched by Obama to confront the Taliban more forcefully this spring and summer. Despite seven years of effort by the U.S. and allies, Afghanistan remains a battleground with an unstable government, flourishing opium trade and suicide attacks by supporters of al-Qaida. Monday's announcement came a week after Afghan civilians were killed during a battle between militants and U.S. forces⦠http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan .
Dwelling on wars is beside the point, in fact a case can be made that WWII help matters with respect to the depression. Iraq cost about a trillion over 6 years, but we just spent 2-3 trillion in 6 months, social welfare is staring down 50 Trillion unfunded mandate, takes up over twice the budget, and now runs annual deficits- so why the focus on wars? I guess it makes for more dramatic threads for drama whores from south america??? it doesn't hold up to simple arithmetic, the US's problems are not military in nature
. May 12, 2009 SouthAmerica: Reply to Mav88 You wrote the following: âIraq cost about a trillion over 6 years, but we just spent 2-3 trillion in 6 months, social welfare is staring down 50 Trillion unfunded mandate, takes up over twice the budget, and now runs annual deficits- so why the focus on wars?" By the way, most of your information it does not make any sense. I have no idea what you were trying to say here: âbut we just spent 2-3 trillion in 6 months, social welfare is staring down 50 Trillion unfunded mandate, takes up over twice the budget, and now runs annual deficitsâ Anyway. Here are some postings of mine on this forum most of this information were posted before you became a member of this forum: You should also read Part 2 of 2 of the enclosed posting. You might even learn about something knew to you. *** February 19, 2007 SouthAmerica: Reply to Hydroblunt In the mid 1970âs when I was in college I did read a very interesting book that gave me a detailed analysis of the roots of the economic mess that the US found itself in the 1970âs â the name of the book was âInflationâ by Michael Harrington. He also wrote a number of other books, but the book that made him famous was âThe Other American.â I was an undergraduate economics student at that time and Michael Harringtonâs book made a lot of sense to me. The root of the problem of the inflation of the 1970âs was in the massive US defense spending going back to the mid 1960âs because of the Vietnam War. Massive defense spending generates inflation in future years. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...=6&pagenumber=4 ***** Part 1 of 2 September 28, 2008 SouthAmerica: In the 1930's FDR provided the United States with the "New Deal" - that built the foundations for a middle class system in the US economy. In 2008 the Democratic Party is providing the United States with the "Death Deal" - this was the last blow needed to destroy the middle class system in the United States. Under FDR a Democrat the US built the foundations for a middle class in the United States. In 2008 under a Democratic Party controlled Congress the entire social safety net has been dismantled and the last nail in the coffin of the middle class in the United States. The intelligent Democrats gave the American people the social safety nets and the incompetent Democrats of 2008 gave all the social safety nets away for nothing.... The United States was in trouble before the house of cards collapsed on Wall Street. Today Americans have 2 choices: 1) Bailout the gamblers in Wall Street to and help them with more chips for them to keep their casino game on to the tune of trillions of US dollars or 2) The government try to keep its declining resources to pay for the enclosed costs and keep some reserves for future emergencies such as extend unemployment benefits for people who run out of unemployment benefits and some other emergencies that might be coming our way in the near future. When you take in consideration all the liabilities that are coming due and the current economic position of the United States economy â it is a criminal action to approve the Wall Street bailout to the tune of trillions of US dollars. Only idiots would vote in favor of such a Wall Street bailout. If the Americans allow this Wall Street bailout to materialize then they deserve to pay the price for being so stupid â when you are brain dead people take advantage of you â and right now the only justification we have for the US government to approve such a massive Wall Street bailout today it is because Americans are completely Brain Dead. ******** October 4, 2006 SouthAmerica: Today, October 4, 2006 the cable television channel âCNBCâ on its program âPower Lunchâ they did broadcast a live speech by Ben S. Bernanke the Federal Reserve Board Chairman at the Economic Club of Washington. And on his remarks Ben Bernanke has raised the âred flagâ that I have been mentioning on this thread â the tidal wave of Baby Boomers that will need Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in the coming years. This âTsunamiâ (a very large tidal wave) is not something that is going to happen some day in the future. The âTsunamiâ is here and it is time to run for the hills. His speech was very good and âalmostâ to the point. Here is why: The real problem âis notâ with the Social Security fund, and Ben Bernanke knows that, and in my opinion the government should leave the Social Security fund alone. The real problem is with the âMedicare and Medicaidâ funding. Here is were we have no way of knowing how much the old folks are going to cost the federal government in the future. Here is where the major problem lies and we need to develop new solutions for the Medicare and Medicaid problem. Ben Bernanke told us on his remarks about the savings rate, about pensions, about deficits, about everything that he could think of â while he discussed anything and everything including cutting benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid â but he ignored and did not say a word and nobody wants to talk about it, including Mr. Bernanke, about âthe elephant standing in the room.â I understand why he canât talk about âthe elephant standing in the roomâ because of political reasons and that would be the last thing the Republican administration would expect from him as Fed Chairman. The truth is the Fed Chairman canât talk in public that the United States canât afford all this âdefense expendingâ and wage wars around the world with an incredible price tag attached to it at a time when there is a major crisis in the horizon that will require a ton of money in the US. IN A NUTHSHELL: The United States will require a ton of money to be able to take care of this âTsunamiâ of people aged 65 and older. And the United States canât afford to spend all this money to keep the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan going on forever. The worst part is that the United States is not using even its own money to fight the war on Iraq â the United States is using money borrowed from foreign countries at the tune of $ 3 billion US dollars per day. I wonder for how long the Chinese, the Japan and other foreigners will continue lending money to the United States for the United States to wage war against other countries? This is not money that is being invested for the future â this is money that is being wasted away very fast. For the American people the choice is very clear: Use the money to take care of its ageing population at home or âwaste the moneyâ in fighting an illusionary war that at the end â it will turn out just like Vietnam and I already can picture seeing on television the last helicopter leaving a rooftop in Iraq with the last American personal that fought in the Iraq War. You can read Part 2 of 2 of this posting at: 1930's FDR "New Deal" - 2008 Democrats approve the "Death Deal" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...&highlight=destroy+the+safety+net#post2093196 .