Thursday, March 25, 2010

Civil Contracts No Longer Matter

The Obama administration is set to make additional changes to the free market system on Friday according to sources who wish to remain anonymous since the official announcement has not been made as yet according to an AP story by Alan Zibel . Obama wants banks to reduce the amount of debt owed by individuals about to have their houses foreclosed due to unemployment and harsh economic times.

“The plan also will require the more than 100 mortgage companies participating in the administration's program to consider slashing the amount borrowers owe.”

An article by John Gittelsohn at Bloomberg.com raised questions regarding the wisdom of manipulations of the mortgage industry since over half of previously reworked mortgages which had been in default eventually ended up in default a second time.

“President Barack Obama’s administration is pressuring lenders to alter loans to reduce the number of properties lost to foreclosure.”

What does “pressuring lenders to alter loans” mean in plain English? It means that civil contracts no longer matter. If I borrowed $200,000 for a house; now the government can erase that figure and write in a more equitable amount, one which I might eventually be able to pay, regardless of how much the lender might complain. Does anyone, other than me, see a problem here?

Eventually it will mean the end of the banking industry’s ability to enter into contracts for fear of having the government renegotiate the terms and conditions in order to make it easier for unqualified borrowers to take advantage of the lender based on their inability to repay what they originally promised.

Excuse me; but isn’t this exactly the same problem which caused the mortgage and banking industry to collapse sending the country’s economy into a tail spin? Banks were forced to extend loans to unqualified borrowers in order to have everyone obtain the “American dream of home ownership”.

What happens if my group of “community organizers” determines the American dream includes a new Mercedes Benz in the driveway next to that required house? Why not include access to an executive class Lear Jet, designer clothing, and golf club membership paid for by my fellow citizens? Hell if you’re going to dream, dream BIG; somebody else is footing the tab anyway.

Where does the fantasy end and reality take over? The answer, when those paying for entitlements are swept into bankruptcy through taxation, fees and regulations; that’s how to destroy America. (Subliminal message, Cloward Piven )

ACORN community organizers pressured lending institutions into making bad loans, loans to folks who couldn’t finance a game of jacks were buying houses because banks were being threatened with legal action and intimidation and through government intervention. The result was millions of defaulted mortgages, worthless paper being sold until the house of cards fell down.

Obama wants another “do over”, another opportunity to destroy the free market system. It has to work or millions of home owners will be thrown out into the streets; isn’t that the mantra out of the Obama administration? TARP wasn’t enough of a failure, now billions more taxpayer dollars will be used to destroy yet another foundation of society, civil contracts. (Subliminal message, Cloward Piven )

It will get to the point where the only commerce going on will be direct bartering; there won’t be any borrowing and lending, who’d be dumb enough to expect payment? I’m afraid Paul Simon had it right when he sang an American Tune . Somebody’s got to pay for all these entitlements…






“…Still, tomorrow’s gonna’ be another working day


And I’m trying to get some rest,


That’s all, I’m trying to get some rest.”


This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

28 comments:

The probligo said...

OK, so seeing that what Obama is doing is so wrong, what would you propose to do as a successful alternative?

Let's assume that you insist that the government do nothing to support the banks. That what you want?

So, they start selling up mortgaged properties to get out from under. Good thing, huh! They made the bad investment decisions, they can suffer for it.

Two things happen, there will be a large reduction in the value of property; there will be an over-supply and no-one will be buying; the banks will make extensive losses on their loan books and investments.

The first will mean an increase in bankruptcies. No question about that. That will mean that other lenders - ranging from creditcard companies to "corner businesses" such as your own - will be under increased liquidity pressure and reduced collections.

The second will put the banks' ability to pay lenders both interest and potentially pricipal as well. That, my friend, might well be other banks so who cares? Just remember as you sit there gloating at the misfortune of others that your bank, the one holding your retirement fund, your trading funds, will also have that money invested either directly in failing mortgages or banks holding the same.

Does that bring it home a bit?

So, what is the Stern Solution? An outline of concrete actions to be taken, rather than the usual politically correct generalisations preferred... Just think, come up with the right idea and be rich beyond your wildest dreams.

MK said...

Amazing isn't it, how obama thinks that by passing laws he can end poverty and rescue people from bad loans.

"Eventually it will mean the end of the banking industry’s ability to enter into contracts..."

That's just the start, if the fascist in the white house can step in and change contracts willy-nilly, who the heck will be dumb enough to invest any money in America, who will lend you money, who will be dumb enough to do business with you.

He sounds profoundly stupid doesn't he, even for a leftist, but he's not, he knows that initially the idiots will jump at it, but further down the track lies a complete breakdown. However hussein knows that will take a bit of time, and by then he'll be long gone and his sycophantic media ass-polishers will have cemented his so-called legacy as the lord and savior or some such crap.

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo. Most of your comment is off target from the issue, that being the government telling a lender to alter the terms of a civil contract in order to bring about social justice (wealth redistribution).

Civilized society has, at its foundation, several important basic rules; one of them is confidence in contractual agreements and the resulting ramifications to those who fail to hold up those agreements. You, Sir, claim to be enlightened in the area of economics; wasn't that taught in Eco 101?

Obama's administration has already done plenty of damage in this area with the take over of the car industry when he altered the bankruptcy rules in redistributing the "spoils" to the unions rather than going by accepted laws giving the shareholders first dibs. This has endangered the entire stock market and made investors uneasy, just another reason for our economy to be in the toilet.

If American investors are uneasy about the plight of our economy; just think how the international stage looks to foreign investors, places like China who hold huge amounts of our national debt know that our government doesn't give a rat's pattootie about holding to agreements made, that we will wiggle out of contracts to suit our needs. That my friend is a recipe for collapse.

I will avoid the remainder of your comment, "how would I fix this mess?" That would take an entire book, much less a comment section.

T. F. Stern said...

MK, As you can see, I addressed your concern in my comment to the Probligo, "If American investors are uneasy about the plight of our economy; just think how the international stage looks to foreign investors, places like China who hold huge amounts of our national debt know that our government doesn't give a rat's pattootie about holding to agreements made, that we will wiggle out of contracts to suit our needs. That my friend is a recipe for collapse."

Some folks just don't get it; they're trying to save a dead horse by killing the fellow who owns the stable. The horse is dead, why try to pump it up to make it look like its alive? All this does is waste time and effort.

The probligo said...

"The horse is dead, why try to pump it up to make it look like its alive? All this does is waste time and effort."

Ah, now I get it.

The American economy is F'd.

So, do nothing and in two years time we will be working for our Communist masters so why worry?

Obama and his crew might be doing the wrong thing. At least they are doing something. A whole lot more than crying into a beer and saying "What is the point! We're F'd".

Do you think that McCain would have done any different?

The probligo said...

Just to balance things up a bit, and parhaps it might clarify things for the galah as well, this was your response to my thoughts on the health law change -

"Probligo, The largest issue you fail to see is HOW things are done, not how much they cost. There are trigger words which defy the American spirit; one of them is Mandate. We associate that word with being subjects to government rather than being citizens who have government report to them. This one important issue may be the most important. The rest is just numbers on a page, something I leave to my wife or my accountant. Sorry no need for a discussion on accounting."

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo, You’d better hone your skills in the art of misdirection; the response you’ve given won’t fly either.

The dead horse reference has to do with folks who have signed mortgage contracts and cannot fulfill their part of the agreement. Obama and the wealth redistribution orgy which has been going on would have everyone in America believe that home ownership is a right and everyone’s responsibility is to figure out a way to keep folks in a house regardless of their ability to pay. That is pumping up the dead horse. The fact that better than half of the restructured mortgages failed and went into foreclosure anyway is proof that pumping up a dead horse is asinine; all done, by the way, under TARP money (taxpayer money).

Obama MIGHT be doing something wrong; but at least he’s doing SOMETHING; my goodness, if Obama suggests shooting the loan officer for having taken advantage of some ignorant future home owner or for lending him money for a house that will be foreclosed on because he knows he can’t afford it, at least he’s doing SOMETHING, and it MIGHT be wrong. What an asinine proposition if I do say so; and then you want to know what McCain would have done …

Maybe you should stick to another topic you know nothing about, religion.

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo, You are unable to distinguish one idea from another. The issue involved with health care legislation violates so many constitutional issues as to render at least four basic rights and liberties void according to some folks who specialize in constitutional law review. My answer to your comment ( in that context) was not to become so involved in the numbers as to the significant loss of liberty.

Now, try and stay with me, hard as it might be, contractual agreements are part of the foundation of civilized society and are recognized internationally. When you sign a contract, your signature is your bond and your word that you will honor that contract. When you attempt to get out of a contract which has already been signed it means you are not worth your bond and your word is of no value. This is the issue when Obama wants banks to give these poor folks a break, let them violate their contracts; their word is no good and they still owe the mortgage lender the full amount regardless of public opinion polls and how much pressure is placed on the folks who are part of the receiving end of the contract agreement.

In short, Probligo, you have no clue what you are talking about.

ahura said...

"So, what is the Stern Solution?"

Off course probligo, how dare TF criticize obama without outlining his own 2000 page (is that enough for you?) peer-reviewed economic proposal! Is that concrete enough for you, or were you expecting him to get the wheel barrow and start mixing the cement too? Why don't you just demand that TF form a country and run it first for 40 years before daring to opine on economic policy, that would make about as much sense as your 8 paragraphs of pot-induced ranting.

Based on your logic, no one can dare to become a food critic without owning and running their own top-notch restaurant, no one can dare to give an opinion on a car without building a BMW or Toyota corporation themselves. No one can give an opinion on plasma TVs without building Plasma TVs and putting them in concrete, to borrow from you.

I take it probligo, that every time you dared to criticize any government policy that you simultaneously released your own peer-reviewed policy documents outlining concrete actions to be taken. Have you ever criticized the policy of your government or the past ones, you did have concrete policies and steps outlined when you did so? Did you ever criticize the bush administration, if so did you have your own proposals prepared and posted? Got any proof? If not, why not probligo?

ahura said...

"Obama and his crew might be doing the wrong thing."

At least you admitted that what the idiot is doing is wrong.

"At least they are doing something."

Those are usually what we hear when things start to go wrong, when liberals and their sycophantic followers cry, at least we're doing something!

The probligo said...

All of which leaves me with a picture of people who know what they don't like, but are completely devoid of any understanding of consequences and alternatives.

TF, the crux of the problem you face is exactly "folks who have signed mortgage contracts and cannot fulfill their part of the agreement".

What happens when they default? Usually the bank sells the property in order to minimise their loss. No problem there, TF. Good business.

So, someone lost their home? Bad judgement does have its consequences. This is one.

In the "normal" economy, this happens without usetting the applecart. There is an element of risk involved; the risk is known, and accounted for in the bank's profits.

But why am I wasting my breath? This is accounting and money. It doesn't matter...

Ahura, I understand the processes and perils very well indeed. I also know the limits of my abilities. I might be and aged and worn out accountant; I studied macro-economics as part of my professional qualifications and I do know a little bit about what constitutes an economy.

Yes, I did criticise the Bush Jnr administration. For the little jaunt he took into Iraq. That criticism was based on my personal assessment of the evidence presented, was clearly explained, and (to my great surprise) has since proved to be largely correct ( the enquiry into British involvement in Iraq has reached the same conclusion, the basis for my assertion). I presume that Obama is, in your book wrong for wanting to bring "your boys" home?

Sorry for going offtopic TF, couldn't resist that one.

T. F. Stern said...

Ahura, Thanks for stopping by, hadn't seen you here up until today. Live long and prosper!

I guess I should have mentioned to the Probligo that the first part of "The Stern Solution" would be to take the families of anyone who voted for TARP, Health Care Reform or any number of wealth redistribution programs and haul their families off to the goolag farm. Then, once these fine folks were aware that their families were in immediate care and custody of a totalitarian like myself, one who could destroy life as they know it, I'd ask them, very politely at first, if they didn't want to change course and restore America to the Republican form of government complete with constitutional values.

At that time the economy would no longer suffer from edicts from the EPA, the Sierra Club or Green Movement; capitalism would take hold where it should and the problem would solve itself without the aid of government.

Wow, that was some strong stuff I dreamed I was smokin!

Did you imagine that last comment along with me Probligo? I always wanted to know what life was like in the 60's but never bothered to inhale.

Tigersue said...

The problem is no one is accountable for their own choices and actions anymore. Everyone else is at fault, the "evil" banks, the "evil" corporations. People are so angry and anyone that wants to or tries to make money that they have to try to get their greedy little hands in the pie.

Then when they can't afford it, it is someone else's problem. Then we all have to pay for it.

I have seen this attitude in the smallest of things including small applications on facebook that when ever the developer makes a change they are accused of doing it to make more money. It is very tiring.

What this means is we have gone from when a man's spoken word was good enough to get a loan, to needed to get a signature for the security of the loan to what now. No longer does a man's word mean anything and neither does his signature.

T. F. Stern said...

Tigersue, It used to be, at least here in America, the idea of self reliance and integrity held the country together and lifted it above the standards of European nations which we had separated ourselves from. The individual was paramount, not the collective. This "change" the Obama administration, along with the progressive movement, is attempting to employ violates every thing the founders of our nation sought for.

I can see this as a defining moment, not only for our nation; but more importantly, for each and every individual as he/she makes a choice on which side to support. Will we follow the lie which offers a free ride on the backs of our fellow citizens or will we stand for correct principles as our Savior taught?

ahura said...

"I studied macro-economics as part of my professional qualifications and I do know a little bit about what constitutes an economy."

Oh ok, so it's only on macro-economics that you demand concrete steps and outlines then?

"Yes, I did criticise the Bush Jnr administration. For the little jaunt he took into Iraq."

So you're angry that Iraqis are free from a tyrant and can choose their own destiny now? What about Afghanistan, was that also a little jaunt?

"That criticism was based on my personal assessment of the evidence presented, was clearly explained, and (to my great surprise) has since proved to be largely correct ( the enquiry into British involvement in Iraq has reached the same conclusion, the basis for my assertion)."

So i take it you didn't have a outline of concrete actions to be taken instead to rid the world of Saddam Hussein? Also was that all you criticized about the Bush administration, nothing else accompanied by an outline of concrete actions to be taken?

And are you saying you never criticized the actions of any other government, just Bush Jnr and his 'little jaunt' into Iraq?

"I presume that Obama is, in your book wrong for wanting to bring "your boys" home?"

Yes, if be brought them home in defeat. Oh and i'm making the assumption that you mean soldiers and not small children.

And while you're on the subject of Obama and "the boys", what's your opinion on him authorizing the bombing of all those suspected "terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do you think he is wrong for not giving them fair trials?

"Ahura, Thanks for stopping by, hadn't seen you here up until today. Live long and prosper!"

You're welcome TF. Nice blog you got here.

T. F. Stern said...

Ahura, Glad you came back and squared off with some additional information. I'm an acquired taste, or so I've been told; working to improve my writing skills along with rubbing shoulders with folks who have considerable more formal education makes for some interesting comment sections. Please stop by often; at one time I thought the stat counter was broken...lol

T. F. Stern said...

Just so you all know, my feeling are smashed to pieces; not one comment on the Paul Simon ending to an otherwise awesome post. I work all day in the kitchen and nobody compliments me on the way the table was set...

The probligo said...

Ahura, you got your response over my place. I look forward to the debate continuing.

ahura said...

"[3] See [2]. And yes, that was about my only criticism of the Bush administration."

Thanks for answering that part, but you left out the rest, the more important part - So i take it you didn't have a outline of concrete actions to be taken instead to rid the world of Saddam Hussein? Surely your alternative course of actions wasn't the - "Why not just hand out the cash, with the US's favourite candidate printed on the bags?" That's really quite stupid probligo, you seriously don't think that iraq was a hub of democracy and free elections when Saddam was running the country.

"Saddam needed to be dealt with, no question...."

By...

You see i wasn't asking about why you opposed the liberation of Iraq or whether it was justified, i was asking about what your alternative was, because that's what you demanded at TF's blog when he posted an opinion, that he outline the actions to be taken as well. Unless off course you believe that you don't have to live up to the standards you demand of others.

"[4]I criticise the NZ government whenever I think they got something as wrong as the US in Iraq. I have criticised, and praised, the British government as I see the occasion warrants. I have poked the bone at the Autralian government because baiting Aussies in good sport, particularly when they start acting like galahs."

So i take it you didn't have an alternative outline of concrete actions to be taken along with these criticisms either, it was just poking fun and name calling at the end of the day. I can see why you prefer to call those with opposing views, pests. It's difficult to live up to the same standards that you demand of others.

And i didn't see and answer to - And while you're on the subject of Obama and "the boys", what's your opinion on him authorizing the bombing of all those suspected "terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do you think he is wrong for not giving them fair trials? [5].

Perhaps i missed the [5].

The probligo said...

TF, I did not start this, nor do I want it continuing in your parlour. Seems that Ahura does.

Ahura, or is that a short for Anonymous, I get the strong impression that you are another of the unfortunates whose ability to follow a line of thought is close to non-existant or is buried so deep in preconception of what is Right that it has become vestigial.

Just for you, here is my response [5] with the numeral in place...

[5] It matters not if you think the US has "won" in Iraq or not. The probability of "democracy" surviving there in any recognisable form for more than 5 years after is less than 50/50; about the same time as it took Saddam to change things from "democracy" to dictatorship. "

I also and obviously need to put some of the other ideas into one-syllable concepts so that you can understand them, what with you being all-so-new-and-all (recognise Rudyard Kipling at all?).

How many times have you complained (I know that TF has) about American commies using your money to buy an election? I am merely suggesting that it could have been cheaper to make every Iraqi richer by about USD175,000 and saved all those American lives. But obviously the idea is incomprehensible as an alternative.

As it happens, there were other alternatives (not all mine); ranging from carpet-nuking the whole country to doing nothing.

Re-litigating the whole of that sad history might satisfy your little mind. It does nothing for me other than waste my time. If you were around eight years ago, put up a link or two so that I can read and find out what you were thinking back then. If you were truly interested in what I said back then, google will get you to most of the places I have been. My door is open, you can read there. Try here too for some of the history. I don't know if neo-neocon has transferred any of the real old stuff to her new webpage; I don't particularly care. Keep an eye out for senescentwasp, moderate voice, donald sensing and quite a few others.

Now, it being Monday morning, I have a job to go to, in order to earn money to pay my taxes, buy food and save for my retirement.

The probligo said...

Oh, and to respond concerning the bombing of Afghanistan...

The Afghanistan war was sanctioned by the international community. There is at least that distinction with Iraq.

I have no problem with the US wasting its money trying to fight a conventional war against the Taliban, against bin Laden and Alqaeda.

Have they won yet?

Has bin Laden's body been taken prisoner?

By shifting the Taliban out of Afghanistan, all that is happening is that that problem is shifting to Pakistan. I wonder if the Pakistan government is happy for that to happen given the problems they have in the north where Alqaeda has more than a good foothold. Oh yes, they came over the border too! Strange!

The very big problem that is being created in Afghanistan - as it is/was in Iraq - is that every civilian killed by bombs, stray rifle fire, misguided missiles and predating aircraft gives another 5 or 6 people reason to join the Taliban.

The probligo solution to that? Treat terrorists as the criminals they are, not as soldiers of war. The Brits did it in Ireland and it worked. Difficulty is that it is not a "quick" solution.

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo,

You wrote, “The probligo solution to that? Treat terrorists as the criminals they are, not as soldiers of war. The Brits did it in Ireland and it worked. Difficulty is that it is not a "quick" solution.”

In that, Sir, you are not only wrong; but terribly wrong. Terrorist and pirates, being enemies of civilization, as defined for over 2000 years, should not be dealt with as common criminals as they are enemies of the entire world; but should be dispatched without delay, much as one would destroy a rabid animal.

Land or sea, terrorists attacking without color of flag or pirates on the ocean are vermin who prey on civilized society without flag and deserve no rights as would be granted to a member of society who happened to violate a law or laws punishable to any other citizen of that country.

They do not deserve the protection of an enemy combatant either, a soldier captured in war; again, they are not attacking under the colors of a flag and so do not have any particular national protection. There are penalties for being at war with an entire planet, terrorists and pirates fall into that category.

The probligo said...

Well TF, there we will just have to disagree.

Hmm, the last global conflict was, as I last heard, known as WW2. I have not heard of WW3 as yet, and I would have thought it likely, unless you include Korea which I do not.

In that last global conflict, the terrorists, outlaws and pirates were afforded some kind of justice - the Neuremburg Trials. Remember them?

But then, I guess that the Wild West still lives on in the minds of some...

Just think, TF. All of those killed by American forces are nothing more than ragheads. Just as they are in Iraq. Not wonmen or children, wedding parties, or Canadians for that matter...

Sad, really.

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo

You wrote, “In that last global conflict, the terrorists, outlaws and pirates were afforded some kind of justice - the Neuremburg Trials. Remember them?”

Had you intended to lump uniformed officers of the Third Reich, war criminals no doubt; along with outlaws ( a generality directed toward just about anyone not abiding laws?) and pirates?

In any case, trails are not out of the question for any of these categories; just that I see no compelling reason to afford pirates and terrorists the comforts or/with “implied rights” to a trial. If they are kept alive long enough for a trial, interrogation or what ever is needed to halt their actions along with the actions of their associates; this would not necessarily be either a civil or criminal courts trial, a military tribunal would be sufficient to deal with them.

I also see no reason to keep them alive once they have been interrogated and subsequently adjudicated by aforementioned military tribunal; dispatch them to their permanent resting place as soon as possible. Hang them, shoot them, drown them in a large open weave sack; just don’t offer them the slightest sanctuary, not even a jail cell to rot in for the rest of any natural term.

Your reference to “those killed by American forces are nothing more than ragheads. Just as they are in Iraq. Not wonmen or children, wedding parties, or Canadians for that matter…”

American soldiers, in uniform and fighting for the freedom of Iraq, not invading in order to acquire land for America, are at war. Casualties are part of war, it’s a messy business. I’ll not be dragged into a debate on the merits of American involvement based strictly on a pacifist attitude that wars kill innocent people or on the idea that American forces shouldn’t have been involved.


Unless you plan to return to the original topic perhaps this should be the last entry in this comment section.

The probligo said...

"Unless you plan to return to the original topic perhaps this should be the last entry in this comment section."

Only too happy to comply, TF.

The same rule applies to others as well, hmmm?

I'm done.

ahura said...

"I get the strong impression that you are another of the unfortunates whose ability to follow a line of thought is close to non-existant or is buried so deep in preconception of what is Right that it has become vestigial."

My ability to follow a line of thought isn't in question here, your inability to live up to the same standards you demand of others is. Nice ad hominem and use of big words though. I didn't quite understand all that, not being a macro-economist and all that, but it doesn't matter anyway.

"Just for you, here is my response [5] with the numeral in place... [5] It matters not if you think the US has "won" in Iraq or not. The probability of "democracy" surviving there in any recognisable form for more than 5 years after is less than 50/50; about the same time as it took Saddam to change things from "democracy" to dictatorship."

That was your answer to this question - "And while you're on the subject of Obama and "the boys", what's your opinion on him authorizing the bombing of all those suspected "terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do you think he is wrong for not giving them fair trials? [5]"

You see probligo, I wasn't talking about Iraq so my thoughts, victory, saddam, democracy and a 5-year outlook on Iraq is incoherent as a response to a question on Afghanistan. Looks like you are having trouble following a line of thought probligo, some vestigial one-syllable concepts are in order perhaps.

"How many times have you complained (I know that TF has) about American commies using your money to buy an election?"

Never. Funny you should mention commies, do you have favorable views of communism probligo? Just out of curiosity, and please, no long-winded answers are needed, i know you have a job to go to and besides, i'm no macro-economist, just an 'unfortunate'.

"I am merely suggesting that it could have been cheaper to make every Iraqi richer by about USD175,000 and saved all those American lives. But obviously the idea is incomprehensible as an alternative."

So that was your alternative, sorry, i thought that was a joke or something, it's certainly no concrete outline, if that's the best you have, then that's fine, it's pretty stupid in my opinion, but then i'm no macro-economist. If that was your alternative, then i guess it is, i suppose you didn't say that the alternative has to be a viable or sensible one.

Note TF, the next time you have something critical to say about President Obama's policies, all you need as an alternative outline of concrete actions to be taken, is anything that comes to mind, you can even copy something from the phone book. That ought to satisfy The Probligo, unless he changes his mind off course.

Continued below....

ahura said...

"...there were other alternatives (not all mine); ranging from carpet-nuking the whole country to doing nothing."

You wouldn't accept "do nothing" would you, after all you said earlier that doing something, even if it's wrong (does that include stupid?) is better than doing nothing?

"Re-litigating the whole of that sad history might satisfy your little mind. It does nothing for me other than waste my time."

Nice ad hominem again, i guess i should consider myself lucky for not being called a type of australian bird. I wasn't asking you to re-litigate history or comment on the sadness of freeing a nation from a tyrant probligo, merely that you live up to the same standards you demand of others.

"Now, it being Monday morning, I have a job to go to, in order to earn money to pay my taxes, buy food and save for my retirement."

Well bravo for you, we all have jobs to go to, but i'm sure yours is much harder though, being a macro-economist. I'm off to mine soon.

"I have no problem with the US wasting its money trying to fight a conventional war against the Taliban, against bin Laden and Alqaeda."

Well good, it's not your money anyway, so you really have no legitimate say in the matter.

"The very big problem that is being created in Afghanistan - as it is/was in Iraq - is that every civilian killed by bombs, stray rifle fire, misguided missiles and predating aircraft gives another 5 or 6 people reason to join the Taliban."

So you're against obama authorizing the bombing of terrorism suspects then? Why don't you just give a straight answer, yes or no, you don't need to bring the Irish, your food, your retirement, neo-neocons (whatever that is), your taxes and google into it.

"The probligo solution to that? Treat terrorists as the criminals they are, not as soldiers of war. The Brits did it in Ireland and it worked. Difficulty is that it is not a "quick" solution."

Thanks for the outline of your alternative.

"Only too happy to comply, TF."

I'm sure you are, until next time probligo.

T. F. Stern said...

Ahura and Probligo;

Fortunately for us all this thread has run its course, hopefully.

I'll have to stick more folks in the eye, that was fun.

Be grateful you were not one of the two opossums who landed in my rifle sights this morning. There was a third who snuck out between the boards of a fence; but like Meatloaf says, "Two out of three aint bad".

I used a "break barrel" .177 cal air rifle that Lucy bought me for Christmas to shoot raccoons and opossums. Keeps the noise down, living in suburbia you have to be thoughtful of that.