> You probably don't really understand why people laugh at you sometimes > or > why some here doubt your mental health. Read the above again > (preferably > after a lie down) and see why. What exactly do you think will happen if > there is no bailout or stimulus package?
I think the recession will end in 2009 like the CBO is predicting, even without the stimulus bill. Like the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, we are looking at the current "crisis" through a narrow prism that ignores the perspective of history. %-wise for GDP drop and unemployment this recession is not (yet) as bad as the 2001 recession, or the 1970's stagflation years, let alone the Great Depression. But it can get that bad in a hurry with bad policy, such as I believe this "stimulus" bill and the upcoming omnibus bill and Geithner's stealth $2.5 billion boondoggle represent. http://acreofindependence.com/2009/02/08/cbo-recession-ends-2009-even-withou t-stimulus/ http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf Even the CBO estimates that doing nothing will hurt long term growth less than passing the "stimulus". The "stimulus" is nothing of the sort. It's an attempt to use a manufactured crisis (in this case, one precipitated by government intervention in the mortgage market in the name of "affordable housing") to force massive, otherwise unpalatable, political change. There is even a name for it, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" of orchestrated crisis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward-Piven_Strategy http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967 http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html Note these folks are connected to -- guess who? -- Obama's idol, Saul Alinsky, the guy who named Obama's chosen profession of "community organizer". The financial problems we are facing will not be remedied by quadrupling the federal debt, massively increasing the federal workforce, or expanding the rate at which money is being pumped into the system exponentially through lobbyist-inspired pork-barrel projects. All of these strategies are proven failures in every society in which they've been tried. They lead only to hyperinflation and suppressed private sector economic activity. Eventually social unrest follows, and then repression. I believe all this is by design. If you bothered to understand who Obama really is, and whence he derives his political power, and why his life story as told through his Ayers-breathed "memoirs" and the media is a bold-faced lie, you'd see what I'm seeing, but you can't even see that a poor shlubb like Julio is lead by spiritual forces he doesn't understand to worship Obama like some kind of redeemer. Anyway. You asked "Who is to blame?" as if the obvious answer is Bush and Republicans. Watch this and tell me how Barney Frank's and Maxine Waters' and Gregory Meeks' comments then comport with what they are saying, and doing, now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&annotation_id=annotation_443797&f eature=iv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0 The myth that it was Republican "deregulation" that caused this mess should be put to rest in part by the above information. What government needs to be doing now is massively cutting spending and targeting tax cuts to promote domestic capital investment and private sector economic activity--in order increase federal revenue to pay down the debt. Bush didn't do this, he massively increased spending, and his tax cuts were largely to promote private consumption, not savings and investment. Obama is basically taking the same strategy on steroids. How anyone can say with a straight face that Obama is doing something different I cannot imagine. It's the same approach, just a whole order of magnitude bigger. I agree Bush's fiscal policies were bad, and Obama's are worse. About the only thing Bush tried, but failed, to do right economically was reform social security and regulate the GSEs that caused this mess. Both of those initiatives got him laughed out of Washington. We need to promote domestic production, because only real economic activity that creates wealth has a hope of paying off the massive debt we've accumulated as a society. We need more, not fewer, workers to be working when the baby boomers retire and want their free lunches---so the policy of on-demand abortion that Obama supports must not come to pass. We are already slaughtering our future workforce by the millions every year, and making it impossible to work our way out of this debt---forget the moral argument about the callous murder of innocents and all that. The government has also created a spiraling health care cost problem---also designed to precipitate a crisis that forces political change. (Hillary incidentally actually studied directly under Alinsky at one point in her academic career. That we had two Alinsky-ites at the top of the Democratic list of candidates in 2008, and now one of them is President and the other is Secretary of State, shows how effective the Alinsky-inspired Cloward-Piven strategy has been.) The following is a long but worthwhile article by someone considerably more optimistic than I am that highlights the rosey best-case scenario nicely: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_real_state_of_the_union.html - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
