Hmm....the delayed consequences of 9/11?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 2:07 PM GMT
    Bush and company have boasted how they have kept America safe from a second terrorist attack.

    However, bin Laden's strategy in attacking the US and the western world has been to disrupt our financial systems, since there is no way he could defeat us militarily.

    By getting the US to give a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and invade Iraq, the 9/11 attacks have left the US financially vulnerable. Vast amounts of money have been drained from us. Now in the face of the recent financial crises, we are left in a tight situation to respond.

    It is like we missed the sleeping long term consequences of the 9/11 attacks. And they have been just laying there waiting for the right situation to take their final toll.

  • TexanMan82

    Posts: 893

    Sep 16, 2008 2:20 PM GMT
    This mess was brewing before 9/11. It certainly didn't help, but this has been coming for a while.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Sep 16, 2008 3:15 PM GMT
    Well I think its like anything, you approach it piecemeal and sometimes the big picture is lost. To analyze Iraq alone or any single military (or other)
    action, it may seem to make sense, but the long term big picture may
    be ignored. This isn't a democratic or republican problem, its just a part of long term planning. But the financial security of this country certainly ranks as important as anything military.. Look at what happened with the Soviet Union.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 3:44 PM GMT
    This financial crisis has little to do with the invasion of Iraq or the war on terror. Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 3:47 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidWell I think its like anything, you approach it piecemeal and sometimes the big picture is lost. To analyze Iraq alone or any single military (or other)
    action, it may seem to make sense, but the long term big picture may
    be ignored. This isn't a democratic or republican problem, its just a part of long term planning. But the financial security of this country certainly ranks as important as anything military.. Look at what happened with the Soviet Union.

    Just like seeing commercial airplanes as potential weapons, Bush and company needed to be looking outside the box for what could constitute an "attack"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 4:03 PM GMT
    There is a continuity here, the 9/11 terrorists had most of the clinton administration to prepare for the attacks. When it comes to the blame game, the FBI should shoulder the lion's share of the responsibility. The budget cuts to the Bureau during the Clinton administration didn't help out either.

    But, the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with our current problems with Wall Street.

  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Sep 16, 2008 4:29 PM GMT
    John43620 saidThis financial crisis has little to do with the invasion of Iraq or the war on terror. Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it.


    I would expect you to answer in that manner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 5:06 PM GMT
    I think I'd agree, knowing what little I do, that 9/11 had little to do with what's going on with Lehman, Merrill, et al. Greed, overextension and deregulation are more likely culprits. All those things were in place before 9/11.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 5:15 PM GMT
    John43620 saidBut, the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with our current problems with Wall Street.

    My point is that bin Laden was attempting creating a financial situation that would come into play when a financial crisis arose. ....to weaken us financially, so that we would succumb to financial crises that occur. ...We would be far better off to handle this situation if we hadnt been hemorrhaging money in the Iraq War.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 6:51 PM GMT
    John43620 saidThis financial crisis has little to do with the invasion of Iraq or the war on terror. Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it.


    Wrong! The astronomical budget deficit as well as the pathetically weak dollar (both largely due to the Iraq war) are directly linked to the financial crisis.

    http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/19/news/economy/fed_greenspan/index.htm

    http://pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2008/ps4.8derelictiondollar.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 7:28 PM GMT
    John43620 saidThis financial crisis has little to do with the invasion of Iraq or the war on terror.

    Are you fucking kidding?
    We spent so much on this war under the lie of "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and later the false rubric of "bringing freedom and peace to the Iraqis" that we let our own country slide!

    ---------------------------

    Economists Debate Link Between War, Credit Crisis
    By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, April 15, 2008; A03


    For House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the connection between the Iraq conflict and the U.S. economic downturn is simple: "The president has taken us into a failed war," the California Democrat said recently. "He's taken us deeply into debt, and that debt is taking us into recession."

    This assessment was put to powerful political effect in the latest congressional hearings on the war, when Democrats and Republicans alike told Army Gen. David H. Petraeus that the oil-rich Iraqi government should relieve the United States of the conflict's financial burdens. And Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) echoed the theme yesterday at a manufacturing forum in Pittsburgh.

    "If we can spend $10 billion a month rebuilding Iraq," the Democratic presidential contender declared, "we can spend $15 billion a year in our own country to put Americans back to work and strengthen the long-term competitiveness of our economy."

    But this logic may have more political salience than economic validity, according to many economists, who say that the assertions linking the five-year-old conflict in Iraq to the domestic economic slide have been oversimplified.

    "You should support the war or oppose the war, which I do and have done from the start, on the merits of the war itself," said Martin N. Baily, a former chairman of President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. But, he added, "the current problems the United States is facing have very little to do with the war in Iraq."

    Even so, the theme resonated in Congress last week. "We're kind of bankrupting this country," Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) told Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. "We're eating our seed corn. We're in a recession, and God only knows how long we're going to be in it."

    The link between Iraq and the downturn reflects a growing public perception that individual economic anxieties must stem somehow from the unpopular war -- a unified theory of political misery, said Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster.

    "It's a sour economy, it's a sour mood and it's a sour situation in Iraq," he said. "The public has for the last two years been told about the cost of Iraq in terms of human life. But then there was a direct and important switch, when we went into what I call the surge period, where the budget costs became front and center. While the administration was touting military successes, what the American public saw directly were the costs."

    Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who wrote the new book "The Three Trillion Dollar War," contends that the connection is real. Even with a growing energy demand from China, the United States and elsewhere, oil traders anticipated before the war that the price of oil would remain about $25 a barrel. Instead, it has soared to more than $100 a barrel. Iraqi oil production has not risen with demand, in part because investment in the Middle East has been stunted by war-related unrest.

    Those price increases are self-perpetuating, Stiglitz argues. Oil-rich Persian Gulf states are so awash in money that they are not sure what to do with it all. By holding back oil production, they make more off what they do produce and keep their greatest asset -- oil -- in the ground as they search for ways to spend their cash.

    That cash, through state-owned sovereign wealth funds, has flowed into stocks, bonds and other investments, creating incentives for lenders to offer low-interest loans, many of which have now gone sour.

    But that is only one factor, by Stiglitz's accounting. The federal government has sunk deeply into debt, first with tax cuts, then with accelerating war expenditures that have easily topped half a trillion dollars. That limited the government's ability to keep the economy on track through tax cuts or domestic investments, so the Federal Reserve Board used low interest rates and the free flow of money to keep the economy growing. Cheap credit sparked rash loans, a housing bubble and the current crisis.

    "The war played a very important role," Stiglitz said.

    To economists on the left and the right, his analysis strains credulity. Traditional economics hold that large budget deficits "crowd out" private lending, raising interest rates and making lending scarce, not profligate.

    "The credit crisis we got into is because of the housing boom, the relaxation of lending standards and certainly a lack of adequate supervision," Baily said. "I don't see a connection with government borrowing."

    And most economists still think that oil prices are soaring because of rising demand, not constrained supply.

    "I guess you can argue there's been a contagion of foolishness" sparked by a spendthrift federal government, "but that seems like a stretch," said Kevin A. Hassett, an American Enterprise Institute economist and an adviser to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

    Republicans have tried their best to beat back the argument before it takes hold, even citing one of their ideological nemeses, Princeton University economist and liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has raised doubts about any link between the war and the credit crunch.

    "While both parties agree that middle-class families and small businesses are struggling with skyrocketing costs of living, this latest argument from Democratic leaders smacks of political opportunism at its very worst," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said last week.

    The analysis is politically powerful because people believe it. A CNN poll last month found that 71 percent of Americans say government spending in Iraq is a factor in the economic downturn.

    "When you're spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you're paying a price for this war," Obama told an audience last month at the University of Charleston in West Virginia. "When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you're paying a price for this war."

    The analysis will drive the debate on the $108 billion in additional war spending that President Bush is now requesting. Congress is set to begin debate on war funding before the end of the month.

    "I think there is a connection between the state of our economy and Iraq, and what we're spending over there," said Rep. Baron P. Hill (Ind.), a leading Democratic budget hawk. "We're limited as to what we can do to stimulate the economy. We're limited as to what we can do on health care or any other program. We need to spend more money on infrastructure, on roads and bridges that would have a stimulative effect on the economy, and we're not doing those things because of all the money we're spending in Iraq."

    ----------------

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 7:51 PM GMT
    John43620 saidThere is a continuity here, the 9/11 terrorists had most of the clinton administration to prepare for the attacks. When it comes to the blame game, the FBI should shoulder the lion's share of the responsibility. The budget cuts to the Bureau during the Clinton administration didn't help out either.

    But, the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with our current problems with Wall Street.



    Wrong again, moron. No 9/11 would have meant no declaration of "war on terrorism" and the resulting billions of dollars being wasted on it -- an economic decision that has progressively and effectively killed consumers' and investors' confidence both here and abroad for the last eight years.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Sep 16, 2008 9:03 PM GMT
    Sahem, the article you posted basically says that there's one economist (Stiglitz) who sees a direct link between the spending on the war in Iraq and the domestic economic downturn, but that large numbers of economists on both the left and the right disagree with him. The others in the article who see the link are those without training in economics, either politicians or the public at large. But, then the statements you make in the same post indicate that you think the connection is really obvious and that only idiots would disagree with it. So, what was the point of posting the article? Are you trying to argue that the vast majority of economists are idiots because their economic analysis disagree with yours?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 10:39 PM GMT
    SAHEM6289, This financial crisis has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the 9/11 attacks.

    It has everything to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making bad loans so that poor people and minorities could buy homes and "get a piece of the pie". It was doomed to failure and the rising energy costs appear to have put a stake through the heart of the whole program. The Fed appears to have been complicit in this meltdown by lowering intrest rates to feed into the monster as long as it could until we dropped to 2%. Dropping the interest rate also devalues the dollar. It had to stop somewhere.

    The Democrats are extremely happy we're having this crisis and it appears that there may be some sabotage on their part to set this off. I'm researching it and will try not to be too partisan.

    The war has nothing to do with it.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2008 10:51 PM GMT
    John43620The Democrats are extremely happy we're having this crisis and it appears that there may be some sabotage on their part to set this off. I'm researching it and will try not to be too partisan.


    Be sure to say hi to Pussy Galore for me.
    i-JamesBond.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 16, 2008 10:52 PM GMT
    No the WAR if you can call it that
    didn't directly cause the economic meltdown that we are seeing unfold before our eyes
    but it sure as hell didn't stop it from having the disasterous effect that it's going to have
    do you think Bush's little foray into Mesopotamia mighta had anything to do with the price of oil shooting up to uncharted territories the last few years?
    do you think that the deficit and the devalued dollar might have grown into the monstrous problems that they are because we've sunk trillions into the war that never needed to be fought in the first place and was handled as disastrously as it was?

    Nope the war didn't cause the economic problem we're having right now
    but it's indicative of a mindset of a political party that needs to be voted out of office and kept out until they change the principles that they govern with