Thursday, August 24, 2006

Asked and Answered

August 19, 2006 at 16:09:13

34 talking points for Dems. In case they decide they want to govern again.

by Jay Esbe

1. Is the United States safer without it's allies? with/without ... except for the British... not much difference.

2. Is the United States safer with it's military decimated and trapped in Iraq losing a batallion a month? decimate... "destroy 1/10th"... 1/10 of 2,000,000 troops = 200,000... 1/10 of 200,000 = 20,000... 1/10 of 20,000 = 2,000. So, 1/10 of 1/10 of 1/10 is "decimated"... or hyperbole.

3. Is the United States safer with the entire Arab world enraged on account of an illegal war? No... the entire Arab world is not "enraged" or engaged... only those who really, really want to use religion as an excuse to justify their power grab.... But are we talking about Iraq or the Arab attacks against Israel for 60 years despite the UN sanctioned borders?

4. Did Bush get Bin Laden? Wouldn't have had to try if Clinton had taken him in the 90s.

5. Is the United States safer with the Taliban back in Afghanistan and not enough troops because of Iraq? Perhaps safer with them in the caves than running the country.

6. Was America prepared on September 10th 2001 with Bush explicitly warned and supposedly in charge? What happened to the preparation that the Democrats should have started after the first attack on the World Trade Center and Hezbollah attacks on our troops?

7. Was New Orleans safer with Bush in charge? I thought the mayor of the "chocolate city" was a Democrat?... likewise the Governor of Louisiana.

8. Do you like being told that if you don't support Republicans, you're "on the side of the terrorists"? Not "on the side of the Terrorists"... just on the sidelines for doing anything.

9. Did Bush "solve the middle east problem" or is it now erupting in flames? Did anyone "solve" it. Hey, Bill, what was your solution again?

10. Do you feel safer when Republicans cut port security bugets? Is security spending in total up or down? How much was spent in total by Bill versus George.

11. Did it tell you something when Bush tried to turn New York/New Jersey port security over to an Arab co mpany? That maybe the Democrats who got so upset see all Arabs as Iranians?

12. Does it tell you something that the same Arab company is still in charge of New York/New Jersey port security 6 months after the arrangement was supposedly banned by congress? That the process of turning over the port to another company actually needs another company?

13. Do you wonder why Bush opposed the creation of the 9-11 commission? Hey, that's a good one! Do you suppose he was trying to protect the Democrats who did nothing for the 8 years prior to his taking over just a year prior?

14. Do you wonder why he immediately hired a personal attorney after 9-11? Because he was the one who flew the planes into the towers? Maybe because he understood that rather than address the situation, the Democrats would rather blame someone.

15. Do you wonder why Bush and Cheney REFUSED to be sworn in to swear to tell the truth when questioned by Congress about 9-11? You mean separation of powers? Ooops.

16. Did you liked being lied to 237 times to "justify" attacking Iraq? No, Bush should not have used information that was prepared during the Clinton administration. Shame on him for trusting the Democrats.

17. Do you think a man who was willing to lie 237 times to attack a country which never attacked us, and to kill a hundred thousand innocent people in Iraq, might have been willing to kill three thousand people in New York city to "justify" doing what he wanted to do? Ouch! Stretching that far must really, really hurt.

18. Do you think letting a thousand illegal aliens a day cross our border while confiscating your shampoo at the airport is a legitimate national security policy? Where was that wall and National Guard during the Clinton administration... and which party has long sought immigrants to boost their voting base?

19. Do you think declaring there are "no symbols of national significance" in New York in order to justify cutting proposed anti-terrorism funding is a legitimate national security policy? It's still a lot higher than it was when Clinton was in charge.

20. Do you like the 20,000 Iraq casualties for NOTHING; no WMD, no democracy, no peace, only increasing chaos and death? I voted for it before I voted against it... Saddam was already doing a more efficient job of killing Iraqis, Kurds and Kuwaitis....

21. Do you like starting unnecessary wars and then LOSING them? "I voted for it before I was against it...." Jack Kennedy... oh, wrong war... but the only war we "lost."

22. Do you approve of remaining in a lost cause and watching our soldiers die only to protect Republican politicians from admitting the obvious defeat which has taken place? No, and we should take those 32,000 soldiers out of Korea and 60,000 soldiers out of Germany. Over a half-century is just too long. They've won the economic war. Let's just surrender.

23. Republicans have controlled all 3 branches of government for 6 years, who then is responsible for all this? Voters.

24. Do you think keeping the people who've lied and repeatedly failed national security on the job, to fix what they broke, is smart? No, that's why the Democrats were voted out.

25. Do you like living in the most hated nation on earth now? I don't live in Iran.

26. Do you like having a religious delusional who claimed ""God"" told him to strike at Saddam", with his finger on the nuclear button? No, the Ayatollah should have been assassinated and I'm glad that Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear program... but I'm sure the Democrats don't have the same feelings now about the current Iranian president and nuclear program.

27. Would you like the United States to attack Iran on false WMD pretenses too? "Fool me once....": Bush couldn't even finish the sentance correctly, can you? No, I think it makes more sense for them to develop their nuclear arsenal and start "Armageddon" in accordance with Islamic tradition.

28. Do you want a man who believes Armageddon is "necessary" to fulfill his religious beliefs? Well, you can't have it both ways now. Do you want us to get rid of the President of Iran or not?

29. Do you want two more years of this nightmare? I agree, Ben Bernanke should be replaced.

30. Would you like Bush and Cheney re-questioned about 9-11 and compelled to answer under oath? Yes, and Clinton and Kerry and ....

31. Had enough fear? No, that's why I continue to play golf.

32. Had enough abuse of power, contempt of congress, violations of the Constitution, violations of the court, arrests, indefinite detainment, and torture without trial? He did not have sex with that woman... so everything else is okay.

33. Had enough of being ashamed of your own country, all on account of a few contemptible criminals? That's a little harsh talking about Hillary that way... she didn't have sex with that man.

34. Tired of being held hostage to elevated terror alerts before elections and having your patriotism questioned when you notice they're compulsive liars? Gosh, I didn't know the Brits where having an election two weeks ago.

If you have had enough, realize that the ONLY way to change this disastrous course, is to elect Democratic representatives who will act to remove Bush from office. A vote for ANY Republican anywhere, is a vote for more of the disasters you've already seen and worse to come. Wow, an asteroid is next?

Okay, I've been chastize for calling Iranians Arabs... which I know they are not because we had Iranian neighbors for 20 years and they fully educated us on the difference... but I didn't think anyone would actually know the difference... Dick!

Can"t Find It?

Use the SEARCH BLOG feature at the upper left. For example, try "Global Warming".

You can also use the "LABELS" below or at the end of each post to find related posts.

Blog Archive

Cost of Gasoline - Enter Your Zipcode or Click on Map

CO2 Cap and Trade

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956)
“The Divine Afflatus,” A Mencken Chrestomathy, chapter 25, p. 443 (1949)
... and one could add "not all human problems really are."
It was beautiful and simple, as truly great swindles are.
- O. Henry
... The Government is on course for an embarrassing showdown with the European Union, business groups and environmental charities after refusing to guarantee that billions of pounds of revenue it stands to earn from carbon-permit trading will be spent on combating climate change.
The Independent (UK)

Tracking Interest Rates

Tracking Interest Rates


SEARCH BLOG: FEDERAL RESERVE for full versions... or use the Blog Archive pulldown menu.

February 3, 2006
Go back to 1999-2000 and see what the Fed did. They are following the same pattern for 2005-06. If it ain't broke, the Fed will fix it... and good!
August 29, 2006 The Federal Reserve always acts on old information... and is the only cause of U.S. recessions.
December 5, 2006 Last spring I wrote about what I saw to be a sharp downturn in the economy in the "rustbelt" states, particularly Michigan.
March 28, 2007
The Federal Reserve sees no need to cut interest rates in the light of adverse recent economic data, Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday.
The Fed chairman said ”to date, the incoming data have supported the view that the current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable economic growth and a gradual ebbing in core inflation”.

July 21, 2007 My guess is that if there is an interest rate change, a cut is more likely than an increase. The key variables to be watching at this point are real estate prices and the inventory of unsold homes.
August 11, 2007 I suspect that within 6 months the Federal Reserve will be forced to lower interest rates before housing becomes a black hole.
September 11, 2007 It only means that the overall process has flaws guaranteeing it will be slow in responding to changes in the economy... and tend to over-react as a result.
September 18, 2007 I think a 4% rate is really what is needed to turn the economy back on the right course. The rate may not get there, but more cuts will be needed with employment rates down and foreclosure rates up.
October 25, 2007 How long will it be before I will be able to write: "The Federal Reserve lowered its lending rate to 4% in response to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and massive numbers of foreclosures that threaten the banking and mortgage sectors."
"Should the elevated turbulence persist, it would increase the possibility of further tightening in financial conditions for households and businesses," he said.

"Uncertainties about the economic outlook are unusually high right now," he said. "These uncertainties require flexible and pragmatic policymaking -- nimble is the adjective I used a few weeks ago."

December 11, 2007 Somehow the Fed misses the obvious.
[Image from:]
December 13, 2007 [from The Christian Science Monitor]
"The odds of a recession are now above 50 percent," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's "We are right on the edge of a recession in part because of the Fed's reluctance to reduce interest rates more aggressively." [see my comments of September 11]
January 7, 2008 The real problem now is that consumers can't rescue the economy and manufacturing, which is already weakening, will continue to weaken. We've gutted the forces that could avoid a downturn. The question is not whether there will be a recession, but can it be dampened sufficiently so that it is very short.
January 11, 2008 This is death by a thousand cuts.
January 13, 2008 [N.Y. Times]
“The question is not whether we will have a recession, but how deep and prolonged it will be,” said David Rosenberg, the chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch. “Even if the Fed’s moves are going to work, it will not show up until the later part of 2008 or 2009.
January 17, 2008 A few days ago, Anna Schwartz, nonagenarian economist, implicated the Federal Reserve as the cause of the present lending crisis [from the Telegraph - UK]:
The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. "The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.
January 22, 2008 The cut has become infected and a limb is in danger. Ben Bernanke is panicking and the Fed has its emergency triage team cutting rates... this time by 3/4%. ...

What should the Federal Reserve do now? Step back... and don't be so anxious to raise rates at the first sign of economic improvement.
Individuals and businesses need stability in their financial cost structures so that they can plan effectively and keep their ships afloat. Wildly fluctuating rates... regardless of what the absolute levels are... create problems. Either too much spending or too much fear. It's just not that difficult to comprehend. Why has it been so difficult for the Fed?

About Me

My photo
Michigan, United States
Air Force (SAC) captain 1968-72. Retired after 35 years of business and logistical planning, including running a small business. Two sons with advanced degrees; one with a business and pre-law degree. Beautiful wife who has put up with me for 4 decades. Education: B.A. (Sociology major; minors in philosopy, English literature, and German) M.S. Operations Management (like a mixture of an MBA with logistical planning)