The final gasp of a 'Subprime Nation'

[ballz2wallz]

Pat Buchanan just wrote this article, and I think it is great (and yet sad) to see where we're headed.

Subprime Nation

Since it began to give credit ratings to nations in 1917, Moody's has rated the United States triple-A. U.S. Treasury bonds have been seen as the most secure investment on earth. When crises erupt, nervous money seeks out the world's great safe harbor, the United States. That reputation is now in peril.

Last week, Moody's warned that if the United States fails to rein in the soaring cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the nation's credit rating will be down-graded within a decade.

Our political parties seem oblivious. Republicans, save Ron Paul, are all promising to expand the U.S. military and maintain all of our worldwide commitments to defend and subsidize scores of nations.

Democrats, with entitlement costs drowning the federal budget in red ink, are proposing a new entitlement – universal health coverage for the near 50 million who do not have it – another magnet for illegal aliens. Moody's is telling America it needs a time of austerity, while the U.S. government is behaving like the governments we used to bail out.

California has already hit the wall. With an economy as large as a G-8 nation, the Golden State is looking at a $14 billion deficit in 2009 and a $3 billion shortfall in 2008. Gov. Schwarzenegger has called for slashing prison staff by 6,000, including 2,000 guards, early release of 22,000 inmates, closing four dozen state parks and a 10 percent across-the-board cut in all state agencies. The Democratic legislature is demanding tax hikes, which would drive more taxpayers back over the mountains whence their fathers came.

Meanwhile, Washington drifts mindlessly toward the maelstrom. With the dollar sinking, oil surging to $100 a barrel, the Dow having its worst January in memory, foreclosures mounting, credit card debt going rotten, and consumers and businesses unable or unwilling to borrow, we appear headed into recession.

If so, tax revenue will fall and spending on unemployment will surge. The price of the stimulus packages both parties are preparing will further add to the deficit and further imperil the U.S. credit rating. This all comes in the year that the first of the baby boomers, born in 1946, reach early retirement and eligibility for Social Security.

To stave off recession, the Fed appears anxious to slash interest rates another half-point, if not more. That will further weaken the dollar and raise the costs of the imports to which we have become addicted. While all this is bad news for the Republicans, it is worse news for the republic. As we save nothing, we must borrow both to pay for the imported oil and foreign manufactures upon which we have become dependent.

We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy.

We borrow from the nations we defend so that we may continue to defend them. To question this is an unpardonable heresy called "isolationism."

And the chickens of globalism are coming home to roost.

We let Europe to get away with imposing value-added taxes averaging 15 percent on our exports to them, while they rebate that value-added tax on their exports to us. Thus, the euro has almost doubled in value against the dollar in the Bush years, as NATO Europe begins to bail out on Iraq and Afghanistan.

We sat still as Japan protected her markets and dumped high quality goods into ours and China undervalued its currency to suck jobs, technology and factories out of the United States. Now, China and Japan have $2 trillion in cash reserves. The Arabs have an equal amount of petrodollars. Both are headed here to spend their depreciating dollars snapping up U.S. assets – banks, ports, highways, defense contractors.

America, to pay her bills, has begun to sell herself to the world.

Its balance sheet gutted by the subprime mortgage crisis, Citicorp got a $7.5 billion injection from Abu Dhabi and is now fishing for $1 billion from Kuwait and $9 billion from China. Beijing has put $5 billion into Morgan Stanley and bought heavily into Barclays Bank.

Merrill-Lynch, ravaged by subprime mortgage losses, sold part of itself to Singapore for $7.5 billion and is seeking another $3 billion to $4 billion from the Arabs. Swiss-based UBS, taking a near $15 billion write-down in subprime mortgages, has gotten an infusion of $10 billion from Singapore.

Bain Capital is partnering with China's Huawei Technologies in a buyout of 3Com, the U.S. company that provides the technology that protects Pentagon computers from Chinese hackers.

This self-indulgent generation has borrowed itself into unpayable debt. Now the folks from whom we borrowed to buy all that oil and all those cars, electronics and clothes are coming to buy the country we inherited. We are prodigal sons, and the day of reckoning approaches.

What is interesting to see is that California seems to always be on the forefront of 'the next thing'. Whether it's no-smoking laws, whether it's trends in fashion, or just plain government policy, the rest of the country seems to follow suit. As a result, I think to see what they are going through now is a good indication of what the rest of our country is about to face in the next 5 yrs. 22,000 criminals let loose early in JUST the state of California? Wow.

Also, note to self and anyone else...get out of all debt ASAP. Our country is headed for a world of hurt.

On another note, both Europe and Asia are thought to have freer economies. How did we ever get ourselves into this position? How long will this cycle be this way?

[hsmith]

good thing none of the front runners want to confront this, they all just want more gov't programs

[IminWonderland]

I love how we booted Gray Davis, for Arnold, and now here it is a handful of years later, and Arnold is in the same position Davis was.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I love how we booted Gray Davis, for Arnold, and now here it is a handful of years later, and Arnold is in the same position Davis was.

What were you people thinking electing him as your governor? He wasn't even a good actor.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

What were you people thinking electing him as your governor? He wasn't even a good actor.

Don't look at me.

I wanted Huffington.

[bheld]

That's a pretty damning rejection of free trade and globalization. Obviously he has different political priorities than I do but in the short term the thing that most people can agree on is that we need to re-evaluate our trade policies.

[bheld]

Actually I'd argue that this is the time to get into more debt. If things get bad the fed can't keep inflation down forever and you want to be owing money instead of owning money when prices spike. Borrow dollars and buy euros.

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

On another note, both Europe and Asia are thought to have freer economies. How did we ever get ourselves into this position? How long will this cycle be this way?

And yet we've had 5 Republican Presidents out of the 7 total Presidents we've had for the past 40 years.

And since '94 the Republicans controlled Congress and held the majority of Governorships until '06.

And all but two of the Supreme Court Justices have been appointed by Republicans.

And yet you still blame Democrats for all problems and think Republicans are the solution?

Both parties are for welfare. Both parties are for warfare. Only a few principled individuals in either party actually care about freedom in personal liberties, freedom in economic liberties, peace with nations, etc.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

And yet you still blame Democrats for all problems and think Republicans are the solution?

No, I blame both. But in this next election cycle, there is one party that wants more government programs than the other.

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, I blame both. But in this next election cycle, there is one party that wants more government programs than the other.

I disagree.


In this next election cycle, there are two parties that want more government programs. They just differ on which programs. That and Republicans are saying they don't like domestic programs but once in office, just like with Bush, they'll change their tune.


Paul being the only candidate that I don't think will do that.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

once in office, just like with Bush, they'll change their tune.

Why do you think all Republicans are just like Bush?

What makes you think that Ron Paul is the only politician that won't act like a politician?

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why do you think all Republicans are just like Bush?

What makes you think that Ron Paul is the only politician that won't act like a politician?

Because Paul has a clear record for all the world to see. If he were going to start acting like a politician any time soon, it would be the biggest flip flop in all of history, since the past 30 years, he hasn't acted like a politician.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

Because Paul has a clear record for all the world to see. If he were going to start acting like a politician any time soon, it would be the biggest flip flop in all of history, since the past 30 years, he hasn't acted like a politician.

You know, to some extent, it is politics. Someone has to act like a politician SOMEtimes.

Given his clear lack of knowledge on our international affairs, maybe he should act like a politician a little more?

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You know, to some extent, it is politics. Someone has to act like a politician SOMEtimes.

Given his clear lack of knowledge on our international affairs, maybe he should act like a politician a little more?

You're right. He has a clear lack of knowledge on our international affairs. I mean, only the CIA agree with him.

[lew]

Oh, and Pat Buchanan, the guy you started this thread about.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

You're right. He has a clear lack of knowledge on our international affairs. I mean, only the CIA agree with him.

Might want to pay attention to his interviews (a la Meet the Press):

Ron Paul, quite incredibly, thinks Iran has no army, no navy and no air force at all and therefore would never attack Israel. Evidently Paul doesn’t realize the utility that ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons would offer an Iran whose president has repeatedly declared his personal desire to wipe Israel off the map. A couple of well-placed nukes could in fact do that, whether Iran has an army or not. Which, by the way, it does. Really. Iran does have an army. A navy and an air force, too, with an indigenously constructed fighter airplane leading the latter into the skies. Paul might want to bone up on that a bit. He’d do well to Google the Shahab series of missiles while he’s at it.

Paul also might want to bone up on the US military’s presence overseas and who actually pays for it. He’s against it, though he doesn’t even know how many troops we have overseas or what they’re doing or why they’re there. That also came out in the interview. And he thinks the US taxpayer pays the entire bill, which isn’t true. We pay the bulk of it, but we don’t pay all of it. Host countries pick up a sizable portion of the tab, funding everything from the cost of living allowances to the housing that our overseas troops need. All of that and more was packed into an interview that demonstrated once and for all that however well-meaning Paul is on the small government front (an area where he could and does make some sense), he’s simply too ignorant on foreign policy and too quick to blame America for just about every bad thing in the world to be trusted with the power of the presidency. No good can come of it.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

Oh, and Pat Buchanan, the guy you started this thread about.

The thread is not about Pat Buchanan.

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Might want to pay attention to his interviews (a la Meet the Press):

Ron Paul, quite incredibly, thinks Iran has no army, no navy and no air force at all and therefore would never attack Israel. Evidently Paul doesn’t realize the utility that ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons would offer an Iran whose president has repeatedly declared his personal desire to wipe Israel off the map. A couple of well-placed nukes could in fact do that, whether Iran has an army or not. Which, by the way, it does. Really. Iran does have an army. A navy and an air force, too, with an indigenously constructed fighter airplane leading the latter into the skies. Paul might want to bone up on that a bit. He’d do well to Google the Shahab series of missiles while he’s at it.

Paul also might want to bone up on the US military’s presence overseas and who actually pays for it. He’s against it, though he doesn’t even know how many troops we have overseas or what they’re doing or why they’re there. That also came out in the interview. And he thinks the US taxpayer pays the entire bill, which isn’t true. We pay the bulk of it, but we don’t pay all of it. Host countries pick up a sizable portion of the tab, funding everything from the cost of living allowances to the housing that our overseas troops need. All of that and more was packed into an interview that demonstrated once and for all that however well-meaning Paul is on the small government front (an area where he could and does make some sense), he’s simply too ignorant on foreign policy and too quick to blame America for just about every bad thing in the world to be trusted with the power of the presidency. No good can come of it.

I'll pass on a Hot Air commentary on Paul, thanks.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

I'll pass on a Hot Air commentary on Paul, thanks.

Why? Cause it's wrong (cause, it's not)? Or you just don't want to hear it?

That's a good way to be 100% confident your candidate is right...ignore everything about him that's wrong!