Did bin Laden win?
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 09-24-2008 - 9:59pm |
Isn't this what he wanted all along? He always said that the U.S. couldn't be defeated militarily, but could be beaten economically.
Think about it. He created and act of terror, guessing the U.S. would come after him, expend massive amounts of treasure doing so, and the chase would cause a paralysis in the economic system.
Isn't it working? Through deficit financing, we have used up all our capital, and now the economic system, so we are told, is shutting down.
Did he create a phantom that kept this administration chasing it's tail, while the soundness of the financial system, bloated by deficit financing and lacking oversight, closed down? After all, the bubble was originally created by the lowering interest rates to keep full employment over the last six years and to finance two wars. Two invasions that didn't catch him and a huge amount of paper, rather than tax dollars were expended. And isn't the deficit what is causing the shutdown of the economic system.
Now that America is essentially broke, we don't have the money to intervine around the world. Now that most of our money is simply going to pay for past debts, we no longer have the ability to operate a sustained operation on all fronts against Islamic terrorist who are home grown.
Even if he is killed or captured now, it doesn't matter. He has handed the power off to his lieutenants and they can keep fighting. He has accomplished every one of his goals that he sat out to accomplish. And now he has a free hand to influence uprising around the world, without interference from the U.S., now too broke to stop him.
Didn't he win?

Pages
I agree Old, I am one of probably the most hated lefty's on here - but
He really didn't.
This is old news.
Actually this bailout is what will do us in... More than Bin Ladin, Social Programs or whatever else floats your boat.
<>
As one who's proud to declare myself a liberal Democrat, I'd like to let you know that not all liberal democrats believe everyone should be able to purchase a home with no money down. I would never consider a purchase with less than 20% down, and I believe it was wrong of the lenders to entice minorities into purchases the lenders very well knew the buyers could not afford, without clear, upfront disclosure of the payments they'd face in 3-5 years when the interest rates on their loans would jump 5-8%.
The gov't needs to help out the bankers only when they are willing to grant an equity position in the shares of the banks as Sweden did in the early 90s. What Paulson and Bernanke are requesting is ridiculous. If it means nationalization (and oh, horrors, socialism!) of some banks, so be it. The corrupt CEOs on Wall Street have proven that capitalism is not all it's cracked up to be.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/22/business/krona.php
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM
Very nice, yes some on here think all on the left are "libs" who
*** As one who's proud to declare myself a liberal Democrat, I'd like to let you know that not all liberal democrats believe everyone should be able to purchase a home with no money down.
I support you in that belief...it's too bad the Congress didn't share our point of view.
*** What Paulson and Bernanke are requesting is ridiculous. If it means nationalization (and oh, horrors, socialism!) of some banks, so be it. The corrupt CEOs on Wall Street have proven that capitalism is not all it's cracked up to be.
I don't think "capitalism" is the problem here...it was gross stupidity on the part of lending companies, predatory lending and consumer greed/ignorance.
Pages