It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will 11/4/2008 Be US History’s Most Significant Day Since 12/7/1941?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I only see two ways the west and/or the USA could end up openly the at war . The first is that a international force gets caught up in a civil war in Russia . The other possibility is that after the US loses the second scramble for Africa the contest of over natural resources in the Arctic .

reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Certainly Russia is looking to exploit political unstability(SP?) in the region in order to regain control of the former block countries . I just don't see any parallels to Czechoslovakia in 1968. Having listed to radio broadcasts for the west I am sure that the up rises expected help from the US . Ike unlike Bush was able to NO to the hawks amongst his advisor and party . What happened in 1968 is erringly similar to the way Bush senior turned his back on an up rising in Iraq before the Gulf War .




posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



I only see two ways the west and/or the USA could end up openly the at war . The first is that a international force gets caught up in a civil war in Russia . The other possibility is that after the US loses the second scramble for Africa the contest of over natural resources in the Arctic .


I suspect the [Georgia] timing came straight out of Moscow even if the complaints of the inhabitants of the 2 provinces are legitimate and older. Until now, it was not convenient to antagonize the US. Now that our president is an unpopular and over extended lame duck, it was decided by Moscow to be the most opportune time to act. And the Polish bumfuzzle.

Keep this in mind. The US has bases in Kazakhstan and Mongolia. Bases in Bulgaria and Turkey. A few men in Armenia. Some in Georgia. We’ve been backing the Ukraine in its struggle with the Russian Federation. No doubt we “back” Belarus and Moldova too. To summarize, we have ENCIRCLED the RF since 1991.

Why is that? Why do we have those bases? Who is threatening Bulgaria? Or Belarus. Or Armenia. Or Mongolia? Why do we NEED bases in those places? The RF has NOT encircled the US. Unless you call Cuba and Venezuela an encirclement. They have no treaty with Canada or even the wanna be break-away Quebeckers. No treaty with Mexico.

I think it is because WE are still COLD WARRIORS. We not only beat the USSR, but we, like Rome punished Carthage, want to punish the Russians so they will never forget who are their betters. And that my friend, is a dangerous and useless game. Hubris replaces thoughtfulness.

[edit on 8/28/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I still say that Saakashvili had his own motives for doing this, and he obviously had Bush43's blessing. If he did not have U.S. approval, he must have thought he did. So far, it looks like Saakashvili is getting what he wanted. Scary, but still impressive. THAT is chess.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



I still say that Saakashvili had his own motives for doing this, and he obviously had Bush43's blessing. If he did not have U.S. approval, he must have thought he did. So far, it looks like Saakashvili is getting what he wanted. Scary, but still impressive. THAT is chess.


Uh uh. This Georgia thing looks to me much like the 1956 Hungarian Revolt. Those good folk were (unintentionally) inspired by misleading over promising propaganda broadcast over the VOA - Voice of America - which implied the US would support revolts with soldiers. That in turn brought on the first Soviet armed incursion into eastern Eruope since 1945. Many Hungarians died and ALL were deeply disappointed to learn the hard way the VOA was no better - no more reliable - than Radio Moscow.

See this very well written opinoin on Georgia.


SAAKASHVILL’S FOLLY
PARIS: The overwhelming reaction from America and Europe on the Russian riposte to Georgia's attack on Russian "peacekeeping" forces in South Ossetia has been that Russia showed too much of its claws.

This response evades acknowledgment that the real damage President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia has done has been to the United States and NATO, and to Georgia itself, which for the foreseeable future will be a nation of limited sovereignty, and an awkward embarrassment to its Western allies.

Georgia will have Russian troops indefinitely stationed on its territory to protect South Ossetia and Abkhazia - henceforth self-declared independent entities under Russian protection or eventually annexed to Russia, at their own petition. The Russians prefer a self-declaration of independence because, as they like to emphasize, it would follow the Kosovo precedent of self-proclamation of independence from Serbia under American sponsorship.

The crisis has been a turning point in international relations because it demonstrates that the United States will not defend Georgia, despite the impression that Washington, after having trained Georgia's troops and displayed the Saakashvili government as its protégée, was in some way implicated in the Georgian attack on South Ossetia and on the Russian soldiers legally there as "peacekeepers."

The Russian soldiers have been there for 16 years under an international agreement following a first Georgian attempt to "recover" the linguistically and historically distinct South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both of which have been autonomous Russian protectorates or regions since 1810.

Vice President Dick Cheney [and Mrs. Christy McCain] is going to visit Georgia next week, after visits to Azerbaijan and Ukraine - which no doubt are in need of some bucking up after this display of Russian fury and of American "diplomatic restraint" (meaning lack of a rational alternative). American naval vessels are in the Black Sea, and one of them, a destroyer, has delivered some humanitarian supplies to a southern Georgian port.

The Russians have darkly declared their suspicion that American vessels have been delivering arms to Georgia. Even though the Russians destroyed all that was left of the new American military equipment and installations recently given to Georgia, Saakashvili is unlikely to want to start up the war again - at least just now, unless Cheney is going to bring the 82nd Airborne Division and the Sixth Fleet with him.

That, of course, is what Saakashvili seemed to expect the night his invasion turned into a debacle. "Where is America?" he said
, "Where is the Free World?" He has since received reassurances from the presidential candidate John McCain and Barack Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, both fans of the unsuccessful Georgian liberator. This has been an inane and stupid affair, except for the unfortunates who got killed or maimed, lost their homes, or have been ethnically cleaned by one side during the past days and are now grieving refugees.

The United States left Saakashvili and the Georgians twisting in the wind, after telling them they were going to belong to NATO
and help spread freedom in the Caucasus. Ukraine and the Baltic states have been given the lesson that great powers do not go to war against other heavily armed great powers just to settle ancient sectarian quarrels or linguistic rivalries in client countries, even if those are prospective NATO members.

Poland and the Czech Republic had thought it prudent to humor the obsession of Washington and its arms manufacturers
with building a missile-defense system against Iran's committing suicide. Now they find that Russia is furious about something they had taken on faith from the U.S., but turns out to have been, to Washington politicians, a voter-pleasing and money-making boondoggle.

Israel now finds Syria talking with Moscow arms suppliers.
Russian cooperation with the U.S. on various matters - Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, counter terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, and oil and gas supplies to Europe - is now expected to cease.

Why?
Because a certain number of policy types in the Clinton and Bush II administrations, and in the Pentagon, decided that it could be a cost-free demonstration of American power to expand NATO right up to Russia's front door. They could even take over some of Russia's historical dependencies and protectorates - just to show who's No. 1. Opinion by William Pfaff www.iht.com...
[Bold by DW]


A US blunder. Letting Gerrgia's Saakashvili act on his own. Can Bush43 and Sec Condo Rice do anything RIGHT? Come quick January 20, 2009!


[edit on 8/28/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



In an effort to stay on topic, By helping them, we help ourselves."


Sen. Obama choose Joe Biden in part because he, Obama, was not increasing his lead over McCain. He needed to counter the public’s perception of his, Obama’s, lack of experience. At least in the number of years as compared to McCain. One of those intangibles you cannot foretell nor in my case, understand.

In fact, the presidential race is now considered to be a DEAD HEAT. This puts McCain under an entirely different paradigm when choosing his vice presidential nominee. If he was 10-15 points behind, he could be reckless and MAKE A STATEMENT in his choice. Sen. Kay B. Hutchison of TX has been mentioned. Once I pushed the Arkansas governor who I called "the Huck" - take-off on the Hulk - because I believe he, the Huck, ran front runner Mitt Romney off the stage by attacking Mitt's religion. Perhaps that was its own reward?

I heard a very smart man say today on CSpan McCain will go with “Mitt Romney” because of the bad domestic economic condition. I had thought he, Mitt, was the most logical man to put on the ticket. BUT, as Mr. Huckabee showed, Americans do not trust MORMONS any more than they like BLACK people. Hmm?

[edit on 8/28/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
This isn't the thread for it, but I wll reiterate my prior statement that Huckabee is a better choice for McCain than Romney.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Justin if you are looking for an uprising in a similar vain to 1968 then keep one eye on Iran . If the reports about the CIA supplying arms to dissent groups are true then an up rising could be in the making sometime in the future . Of course the US government would turn its back on any up rising in Iran after having encouraged such an event to take place for years .

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Justin if you are looking for an uprising in a similar vain to 1968 then keep one eye on Iran . If the reports about the CIA supplying arms to dissent groups are true then an up rising could be in the making sometime in the future . Of course the US government would turn its back on any up rising in Iran after having encouraged such an event to take place for years .

Cheers xpert11.


Interesting. What do you see from your point of view that would lead you to believe that the CIA has the current capability to ferment rebellion in Iran? It's off topic, but you have arouse my curiosity.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Disclaimer the following is an intuitive guess on my part . Judging from the little we know about the CIA bungling in Iraq during the 90s they don't have the capability to instigate a rebellion inside Iran . However in this case the CIA over reliance on technology is a mute point because the CIA cant be caught red handed poking its finger in the pie anyway . All of which means there has to be one or more third party's involved .

A fact that isnt discussed on ATS is that Iran suffers from its share of general lawlessness presumable in the regions near the Afghan and Pakistan borders . So possible third party's include people from the tribal regions of Pakistan or a modern day Operation Paperclip . Former members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban could be helping to smuggle arms and provide training to dissent groups in Iran . War and politics can make for some strange bedfellows . I would also expect the Mossad to have there hand in all of this .

Make no mistake this is a very dangerous game . In all likelihood any up rising in Iran would be crushed . The Iranian response could be brutal . Even if I am wrong and an up rising is successful you would end with Russian Roulette in terms of who would end up governing Iran .

Should Iran end up shallow up Iraq an up rising would be the only way of striking back . In that case the aim could be to delay or prevent Iran from gobbling up Iraq . The more traditional motivation of regime change would or is another reason for some less then bright people to support such an idea .

[edit on 31-8-2008 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



. . looking for an uprising similar to 1968 then keep one eye on Iran. If the reports about the CIA supplying arms to dissent groups are true then an up rising could be in the making sometime in the future.


Ugh, IMO the Middle East (as is most of the world) is AWASH in guns. AK47s bring a mere $100. (I’ve read than in many magazines). Iran must have 1000s of such arms inside the country. While I would put no act of bad judgment beyond the CIA, supplying arms to dissidents in that part of the world to encourage a revolt is just not plausible.



Of course the US government would turn its back on any up rising in Iran after having encouraged such an event to take place for years. Cheers xpert11.


We only support “popular” uprisings by OUR people.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Ugh, IMO the Middle East (as is most of the world) is AWASH in guns. AK47s bring a mere $100. (I’ve read than in many magazines). Iran must have 1000s of such arms inside the country.


You have a good point . One thing worth noting is that an uprising would require more then just a few people firing AK-47 into the air . Myself I would add a up rising in Iran to a list of probable future events that aren't talked about.



While I would put no act of bad judgment beyond the CIA, supplying arms to dissidents in that part of the world to encourage a revolt is just not plausible.


Even if a revolt isnt plausible it is possible that the CIA would still try anyway . There are plenty of groups in Iran who arms and training could be provide to . Kurdish separatists and so called pro democracy groups spring to mind . So it could just be the matter of finding a reliable third party .

Finally to stay on topic I have a question to those who are following this thread .

How would you rate a successful or failed up rising in Iran in terms of importance as an event ?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



Finally to stay on topic I have a question to those who are following this thread. How would you rate a successful or failed up rising in Iran in terms of importance as an event?


I am just finishing the very excellent (and short) book by Zbigniew Brezezinski, Second Chance and The Crisis of American Superpower. The author compares the accomplishments and failures of the three American presidents to have held office since the fall of the USSR - 1989-1991. Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. To cut to the chase, Bush 1 gets a C+, Clinton a B- and Bush 2, an F.

Confronting the near-singular opportunity in history equaled in potential only by the VE Day and VJ Day in 1945, each of the 3 presidents in rapid succession either ignored, avoided or did not comprehend the significance of the moment! Unfortunately, that moment is now passed! We ordinary folk are now left with a world-wide debacle on our hands for us to clean up and to put a band-aid on. Estimated cost: $3 trillion. All wasted. 5,000-6,000 American KIA before we can end the shooting. As usual, WE don't count the other side's dead but estimated at somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 KIA. THAT is symbolic of why we are losing in every contested theater!

Prognosis. UNTIL Americans will show EQUAL regard for the DEAD on every side, there is NO hope our participation in world affairs will get any BETTER. We cannot rise to meet the legitimate expectations of the Leader of the World until we show equal regard and respect for everyone. Sadly, I don't see any sign of that happening. It is the Red state (no respect) versus the Blue state (willing to try) divide.

Back to topic. Iran. What's the likelihood (or value to the US) an UPRISING in Tehran would have any bearing on our relations with Iran? Don't overlook we ourselves trashed the NPT when Bush43 complimented India for willful violation of the NPT treaty and extended his de facto recognition that India could join the Nuclear Club! But equal status arbitrarily denied to NK and Iran? Which leaves Iran the ONLY major player in that region NOT armed with nuclear weapons. (Also armed are Pakistan and Israel). It does not figure!

Keep in mind that US foreign policy is UNDULY influenced by the APAC - Jewish political action committee - and (old pro shah) Iranian expatriates. Just as we - our leaders - gave undue credibility to the Chalabi's of Iraq so do we also listen to those who were expelled from Iran. (Ditto to Cubans who fled Castro’s regime and are now deeply ensconced in American domestic politics in Miami).

I am satisfied that the Iranians our government describe as “pro” West are in reality not pro American but are rather pro the modernization of Iran. Note: we have been consistently wrong in ascribing motives in our public discourse which is driven more by the perceived need to bolster domestic politics rather than to make us the intelligent and admired leader of the world. We start our debates here from an incorrect understanding of the dissidents in Tehran. IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REACH GOOD CONCLUSIONS STARTING FROM FAULTY PREMISES. I see no reason to believe or even to hope that the US covert involvement in Iran’s internal affairs would produce any result we can foresee here. And if such a revolt occurs, it would likely be beneficial to the US only parenthetically.

American’s refuse
to accept the glaring fact that the Arab-Israeli Conflict is the ONE central and fundamental issue that must be FAIRLY resolved BEFORE we can restore a Middle East favorable to American interests. Our ability to influence the outcome of that festering sore grows less with each passing generation. And the price we pay over here rises every decade.


Foot Note From History. I am reminded of the following fatalistic but grotesque remark "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" attributed to the Bishop General.
“In 1210 AD, at the great city of Beziers, France there was a terrible massacre of heretics. 450 heretics were "examined" by the inquisitors and many of them claimed to be Christians rather than being heretics and would not repent. Others claimed to be good Catholics and did not want to die. Fearing the possibility that these were lying, must have caused the infamous phrase to first be uttered [to his soldiers by the Bishop] In Latin, "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" or "Kill them all. God will know His own." [Words in brackets are my own added for brevity and continuity.]
www.hendersons.net...


[edit on 9/2/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Don you seem to be confusing the fact that you and I know that meddling in Iran is a bad idea with the fact that the CIA , members of Congress and future presidents will think the same way . Another possible motivation regime change in Iran could be the desire to install a secular dictator . Those who hold the sway of power via decision making never learn from historical mistakes . There may well be pro democracy groups but I also think that you could provide an accurate gauge to many of the opponents of the Iranian regime .

Some in Iran may want the country to go the direction of China in terms of capitalism with personal freedoms still suppressed . This fits in with your thinking behind the so called pro democracy groups in Iran .



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



Don you seem to be confusing the fact that you and I know that meddling in Iran is a bad idea with the fact that the CIA, members of Congress and future presidents will think the same way. There may well be pro democracy groups but I also think that you could provide an accurate gauge to many of the opponents of the Iranian regime. Some in Iran may want the country to go the direction of China in terms of capitalism with personal freedoms still suppressed. This fits in with your thinking behind the so called pro democracy groups in Iran.


Iran. 645,000 square miles. About the size of Alaska. Located in the (far part to us, of the) Middle East on the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea (420 miles), and generally lying between Iraq and Pakistan. Iran and the USSR now RF have a long running controversy over the caviar producing sturgeon in the Caspian Sea, which gets to catch how many and etc. Iran shares its borders with Afghanistan 580 mi, Armenia 21 mi, Azerbaijan-proper 268 mi, Azerbaijan-Naxcivan enclave 110 mi, Iraq 904 mi, Pakistan 564 mi, Turkey 309 mi, and Turkmenistan 615 mi.

Population estimated by CIA at 65.8 million in July, 2008. Median age, 26 years. (US is 36.7 years, NZ is 36.3 years). GDP per person is set at $10,600. Unemployment by Iran’s government, 12% in 2007. Trading partners, China 14.2%, Germany 9.7%, UAE 9.2%, South Korea 5.8%, Russia 5.3%, Italy 5%, France 4%. CIA estimate in 2006.

Ethnicity: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%. Religion: Muslim 98% (Shi'a 89%, Sunni 9%), other (includes Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i) 2%. Common languages: Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%. Many people are bi- or tri-lingual. English is spoken often amongst the well educated and professional classes. French is the second most popular foreign language.

Chief of state: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI, June 4, 1989. Head of government: President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD, August 3, 2005. AHMADI-NEJAD polled 62% of the popular vote, beating out our favorite, Ali Akbar RAFSANJANI who received 36%. There are 4 major parties and 10 minor parties. I did not copy their representation in their parliament - Islamic Consultative Assembly. That info is available at the CIA website mentioned below.

I posted all that data from the CIA Factbook that anyone could have reached themselves but probably would not. I did so to illustrate how complex the internal workings of Iran really are. I guess the fact that Iran (Persia) is more than 7,000 years old and is mentioned favorably by name in the Holy Writ, gives Iranians a certain sense that they may know what is better for them than amateurs from 6,000 miles across the ocean who just celebrated their own 400th anniversary.
www.cia.gov...

My understanding of Iran is this. It is not monolithic. It is not driven to seek democracy like we in America imagine everyone on the planet is inexorably driven. And as we are constantly reassured by our Maximum Leader mostly they are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the US Army and US Air Force to being them the genuine blessings of democracy. All the more so when we deliver our potent democracy message with our F117 Nighthawks and our MIA1 Abrams boasting a 120 mm smooth bore main gun made in Germany by Krupp! Sweet Jesus!

Yes, I’d wager most Iranians would choose an orderly state, a peaceful state with a good bureaucracy to administer those things any modern government must administer. By “good” I mean competent, fair and not corrupt. Which is what 99% of the people on the planet want. We talk “democracy” up here all the time, but I’m afraid the truth is, the promise of democracy has been co-opted by the R&Fs to cover over their own running of the important aspects of any modern economy to their own special advantage, leaving us peons with a handful of “democracy” to eat.

Going Nuclear?
Iran's northern neighbor - Russian Federation - has nuclear bombs. Iran borders Pakistan - has nuclear bombs - and Iran is very close to India - has nuclear bombs - and engages in long range bombastic dialogue with Israel - has nuclear bombs. North Korea - original member of Axis of Evil - is now getting respect even if uneven and belatedly - has nuclear bombs - and Iran wants RESPECT too. Does it take nuclear bombs to get respect? Prove it does not!

As I learned in Jared Diamond’s book, “Guns, Germs and Steel” West Euro types tend to think their technological superiority over the rest of the world somehow translates into them being SUPERIOR thinkers and problem solvers. The reality is they - West Euros - are often the CAUSE of many of the serious problems that continue to vex us. Poverty for those of you who want one word descriptions.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9/4/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
It's being reported that the Federal government will soon take over Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. How important do you think this date will be in U.S. history? Suppose our Federal government never gives up control of these two entities?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Even thou to my knowledge there isnt the same opposition to asset sales in the US as there is locally I would expect Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to remain in Public ownership in the short to medium term . While the debate rages concerning what should happen to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac they should be run along the lines of a State Owned Enterprise . As for the significance of what has happened IMO that will be determined by what happens next .

It remains to be seen what new regulations will be put in place and other measures will be taken in the wake of the Credit Crunch . If Obama is elected the Republicans may do a flip flop or look towards a policy of returning Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac back to private ownership ASAP . The reasoning behind this would to gather ammo that can be used at the newly elected president .



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



Even thou to my knowledge there isn’t the same opposition to asset sales in the US as there is locally I would expect Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to remain in Public ownership in the short to medium term.

It remains to be seen what new regulations will be put in place and other measures will be taken in the wake of the Credit Crunch. If Obama is elected the Republicans may do a flip flop or look towards a policy of returning Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac back to private ownership ASAP. The reasoning behind this would to gather ammo that can be used at the newly elected president.


There are two significant years in contemporary American history. 1933 and 1980. If my meaning is not immediately apparent, let me remind you of this. Between 1933 and 1979, the US population exploded. 1930, 123,202,624. 1980, 226,545,805. In that half century the US population nearly doubled. 81.7% to be exact. 103,343,181 more people by actual count. Using 3.2 as the size of the average American family, that means 32,294,000 new housing units had to be constructed. Argument: As you should recall, there was NO mortgage meltdown during this culture altering era. We invented the suburbs. We invented the shopping mall. We invented the interstate highway system. We changed the way people lived POST War 2, compared to life in PRE War 2 America. And the world was changed too. As we love to say, life was never the same again.

As a Great Depression counter-measure, the New Deal gave us the FHA. Federal Housing Administration. The FHA did not loan money. Private banks and savings and loans did that. Under the close supervision of the FHA which INSURED home loans. By guaranteeing LENDERS a certain 100% return on their investment, the BORROWER was able to borrow money at very desirable low rates. FHA assessed or added 0.5% to each loan. This money went into a trust account to fund the home loan guarantees. The Fund finished in the black.

A second outcome of the FHA that is rarely heard or mentioned, was the establishment of a UNIFORM housing construction code throughout the United States. If you lived in Connecticut and your employer transferred you to Oregon, you were assured the housing available there was equal to that which you were accustomed to in Connecticut. This certainly enhanced interstate mobility.

In 1943, the Democratic Congress enacted the G.I. Bill of Rights. This is said by many to have had the greatest impact of any law ever passed anywhere, anytime. The law did two things and did both so very well. 1) Education. Every veteran - 90 days honorable service qualified you - would be given a stipend while attending college for 4 years. Or the same stipend for technical or vocational school, flying school, art school, music school, and any other legitimate form of higher or post secondary education. 2) Every one of the 13 million veterans was empowered to buy a house! No money down.

In fact, there are certain house buying charges that are in addition to the sale price. Closing charges of fees as they are called. Title search. Credit report. Appraisal fees. And conducting the closing itself. To aid vets with little money to spare, they could “buy” the house, live in it for 3 months paying what would be their estimated payment after the purchase, and that money would be used to pay the closing costs! THE GREAT POST WAR HOUSING BOOM WAS SET IN MOTION!

Everything worked fine until the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis). See Note 1.

Regulations. We have “proved” at horrendous expense that NO basic industry can be let to its own devices. Soon it is crooks who are outsmarting the earlier crooks. And it just cycles down from there. Now, ONLY the US Taxpayer, in the form of the US Government, can salvage the tangled messes the crooks have left behind. As in the Keating Five case, you can be sure that many INSIDERS realized what was happening several years ago and have taken full advantage of those circumstances.

IF WE PAY FOR IT, WE SHOULD OWN IT.

If I was a Free Market Milton Friedman type, I’d be embarrassed to show my face.

Aside: Population Clocks. US 305,103,694. World 6,722,402,467 Sep 09, 2008


Note 1.

During the crisis 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls) in the United States failed. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government. Under financial institution regulation, which had its roots in the Depression era, federally chartered S&Ls were only allowed to make a narrowly limited range of loan types.

Late in the administration of President Jimmy Carter, caps were lifted on rates and the amount insured per account was raised to $100,000. Increasing FSLIC coverage also permitted managers to take more risk to try to work their way out of insolvency so the government would not have to take over any institution.

Carter left office in January 1981, a year in which 3,300 out of 3,800 S&Ls lost money. In 1982, the combined tangible net capital of this industry was down to $4 billion. In essence, the S&L industry was bankrupt. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9/9/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
In many respects, I don't disagree with what you've said. Old guard Republicans may see this as their last chance to raid the cookie jar before things change. Trying to stay on topic. How does this compaire to past financial scandals? What's the generational equivalent?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
How does this compaire to past financial scandals? What's the generational equivalent?




The scale of Japan's 1980s boom and subsequent bust was breathtaking. In the five years before its 1989 peak, the Nikkei stock average rose 275%. Property prices became so inflated that the tiny spit of land surrounding the Imperial Palace in central Tokyo was briefly worth more than the entire state of California. At the time, Japan's seemingly unstoppable rise inflamed fears among Americans that the United States had slipped into permanent economic inferiority.

When the bubble finally popped in late 1989, stock and property prices nose-dived in tandem. In less than three years, the Nikkei stock average fell 63% from its peak of 38,916. It didn't hit bottom until April 2003 and a total decline of 80%. At Monday's close of 13,326, it remains a fraction of its record high.


Source

You don't even have to go back a generation Japan stagnate economy is still fresh in people memory's. The article makes for an interesting read .The US economy could well be stagnate for a decade while passing on the torch of the worlds number one economy to China at the same time .


[edit on 11-9-2008 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
You don't even have to go back a generation Japan stagnate economy is still fresh in people memory's. The article makes for an interesting read .The US economy could well be stagnate for a decade while passing on the torch of the worlds number one economy to China at the same time


I'm wondering if future historians will look back and see the absorption of Fanny and Freddie as a watershed moment, when the U.S. economy began its descent.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join