As usual with you conservatives, you tout a lie over, and over, and over, and over, and over....etc no matter how many times it's been disproven. http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top
The deficit would have been bad enough still enough to digest if only the bailout hadn't happened. now, all bets are off. The damage done to the economy is going to make the federal budget problem look like a drop in the bucket.
This is a stupid contention. The federal budget is the federal budget, and has generated a certain set level of stimulus without which the economy would be worse off. The point of an aditional fiscal stimulus on top of that is to replace the private consumption that has been lost by the recession. It's a pretty bad time to be arguing against keynsianism when its major competing philosophy - that you can control the economy by manipulatin interest rates - has been disproven, and when even hard right wing economists have reluctantly come out in favor of a stimulus You seem to believe there's some magical concept of "deficit spending" as providing economic stimulus....the spending is what provides the stimulus by replacing consumption, the fact that it is from a deficit is irrelevant to whether or not the consumption is replaced. Anyway you appear from your past posts to be a big fan of President Reagan.....lol...
That's simply not true. The CIA/FBI/NSA/what have you have couple dozens of threats, potential threats, warnings, etc etc etc every other hour. It is their job to decipher which one of those potential threats are credible. Unfortunately in the case of 9/11, they decided those weren't. But that's not an oversight, but merely a misjudgment of its legitimacy. If we were to address every potential threat, the relevant authorities would require much more funding and waste plenty of effort. For example, in theory, there is a Martian invasion potential threat. Most likely the CIA/defense department isn't planning for it.
That's what I am saying. Did the Iraq and Afghanistan wars after the fact help us? Would it have been cheaper to protect America by spending more on intelligence and using our troops in domestic security. How are 2 seperate wars after the 9/11 attack erase it? It doesn't. How is spending more money on intelligence to prevent the 9/11 attack more expensive to the country than 2 multi-trillion dollar wars ? It isn't.
