Our enemies have learned from us how to take down a powerful enemy without firing a shot. What Reagan did to win the cold war was essentially force
the USSR to spend themselves into oblivion. Reagan built up our military to new heights forcing the Russians to follow suit. He armed the rebels
in Afghanistan that were fighting the Russians causing them tremendous economic damage compared to the cost to us. He talked up the Star Wars program
even though we had no intention of ever creating it to get them to try and respond to such technology.
If you look at the attacks orchestrated against the US the goal has been maximum economic damage at a minimum cost. The cost of planning 9/11
and executing the attack is extremely small compared to the immediate and long term damage to our economy. The airline industry needed to be
bailed out in order to prevent bankruptcy. Our economy went back into a recession and at the same time the government needed to increase
spending to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I heard an example that illustrates this strategy perfectly. In Afghanistan we have upgraded the vehicles our troops use to move around
to be able to withstand IED attacks without our soldiers being injured. While I applaud the fact that our soldiers are being protected
what was disturbing is that each time one of these vehicles is damaged by an IED it incurs roughly $100,000 in damages to the nearly $1 million
dollar cost of the vehicle. The bomb consists of a $15 bag of fertilizer, a 9 Volt battery and a few wires, a total cost of maybe $20.
The enemies of the United States see what is happening here. They see our debt ballooning to new heights and know that the best way to take
us down is to help increase that debt as much as possible. This is true of not just us but of the UK, Australia and any other nation supporting
the war in the Middle East. We just happen to be the head of the snake, the biggest fish.
It's amazing how something as simple as economics depends on what your political motives are. A New York Times article today asks
"Why So Glum? Numbers Point to a Recovery".
Now the NY Times has been a shameless cheerleader of every Obama initiative including stimulus and health care. They proclaim
"The American economy appears to be in a cyclical recovery that is gaining strength. Firms have begun to hire and consumer spending seems to be accelerating."
The big problem with that logic is that this recession was not a cyclical downturn and all the hiring taking place is being done
by government. The problems that sent us plunging into recession have not been cured, they have been slowed and delayed with
massive government spending. The government is still spending enormous amounts of money keeping trillions in bad mortgage loans off of
bank balance sheets and all that excess real estate inventory off the market. When that is taken away we are back were we started but only
worse. Now we still have a depressed housing market with record numbers of foreclosures but we also have added trillions to our national debt.
We have also done nothing to address the fuel costs that contributed greatly to the economic slowdown. Oil is being forecasted to rise back
above $100 a barrel and gasoline prices back near $4 a gallon. People have learned from what happened and are not going to be fooled
April 8 - New Age of Discrimination
April 7 - Thank You Kind Stranger
April 6 - The Cost of Compassion
April 5 - Happy Days are Here Again
April 2 - Of Course We Can Do a Better Job
April 1 - The New Normal
March 31 - Take a Deep Breath
March 30 - Metaphors and Blinking Lights