It's not just the subprime mortgage market.

Don't sweat the small stuff

"A $5 trillion deficit? Bring it on, says our man at the OMB."

http://salon.com/tech/col/mcgreevy/2003/07/28/deficit/index_np.html

US Nobel Laureate Slams Bush Gov't as "Worst" in American History

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.htm

Andrew Sullivan, conservative:

"But what really bugs me is that the president doesn't seem to give a damn..."

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/001585.html

I.M.F. Says Rise in U.S. Debts Is Threat to World's Economy

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/business/08FUND.html

Can't last: George Bush's big-government conservatism

The prospect now is of years, even decades, of deficits. Is that scary?

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2335473

Bush's $5 trillion problem

"It's a system that's completely out of control, and it's an absolute disgrace ..."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0123/p02s02-uspo.html

Bush drives the nation towards bankruptcy.

By the American Conservative magazine.

http://www.rense.com/general49/bankrupt.htm

American trade: hurtling towards the tipping point

By all world standards, America's trade deficits are stunningly unsustainable.

http://www.unsustainable.org/view_art_un.php?AID=291

Jobs Bloodbath to Come

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/37588278-1bb1-11d9-8af6-00000e2511c8.html

Economic `Armageddon' predicted

America has no better than a 10 percent chance of avoiding economic "armageddon."

http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=55356

Derivatives Market Grows 20% to $170 Trillion, BIS Says

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aR4pMAz.ogAA&refer=us

It gets worse, of course, but you get the idea.

The US economy has been running pretty much on debt for the entire Dubya administration. A lot of that debt is uncollateralized. There's nothing backing it up. It's just hot air. The hedge funds have mortgaged over the entire global economy five or ten times, making the hedge fund industry little more than a massive long position in a market which can't be long enough by an order of magnitude. Loads of hot air.

If you borrow a million and spend it, you aren't a million richer. It just looks that way. Eventually you have to make payments. Unless, of course, you can't, in which case you bail and bankrupt your creditors. And so forth. Eventually the bottom will fall out.

When it does, it's not just going to be ugly. It's going to be weird ugly.

Just look at how horribly things turned out after some conservative president bailed out of our Sacred Commitments in southeast Asia. Any right-wing nitwit can clearly show you that this resulted in all the dominoes falling and also resulted in the Viet Cong following us home.

If we had fought them there like we should have we wouldn't now be fighting them here.

It just goes to show just how wrong you can be, given an ideology that's a smokescreen for a dishonest agenda.

Yeah, we lose a fortune in oil pillage proceeds and war profiteering. That's why Bush invaded, after all, since we know, even if rabid right-wingers don't, that Saddam didn't engineer the 9/11 attacks and that the neocons lied about the WMDs.

We'll also lose a lot of the hatred a lot of Muslims have for Western conquerors out to brutalize them into submission. They don't much like the dictators we support either, like Pervez and the Sauds and Dubya's best buddy Karimov, who likes to boil his political enemies alive and despises anything resembling democracy, which is no doubt why he likes Bush's Amerika.

How many Salon subscriptions are paid for by the American Enterprise Institute and other vicious neocon propaganda outfits? They do seem to be issuing an inordinate amount of hate mail here, but at least they're supporting moderate (read: leftist traitor) views while doing so.

Salon's vision of editorial honesty and reality-based journalism is probably safe so long as Rupert Murdoch doesn't try to buy it out. Maybe I shouldn't be giving the radical right any ideas.

Iraq is but one battle in the 60-plus-year ideological struggle we call "the war on terror."

Which is total baloney.

Before 9/11 Bush mentioned "terrorism" exactly once and cut back Clinton's anti-terrorism programs besides. Pubs fought those programs tooth and nail in the '90's.

Bush didn't bother with "terrorism" until it became usable as a political tool. But now that the neocons have found themselves a boogeyman to scare Americans into letting Dubya do whatever he wants, and now that you've found yourselves a replacement for the Soviet Union/Cold War, you're going whole hog about it.

And going about it very badly, it would seem, but only if one supposes that the purpose of the "war on terrorism" is to reduce "terrorism". It's not. If anything, the way Bushites are going about it they're provoking it, not decreasing it, which is exactly what they want, precisely because they need that boogeyman.

Try a fresh propaganda lie. That one was discredited years ago.

Apparently so.

The dominoes all fell and all those Vietcong did follow us home, just as the radical right warned us, didn't they? If we'd just kept fighting them over there we wouldn't be fighting them over here right now.

So many are the propaganda lies the Military-Industrial Complex propagates in support of imperial military adventurism. None of them stand up to scrutiny, though.