% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

American Capital Agency Corp. Message Board

  • sheetwise sheetwise Jan 25, 2012 2:12 AM Flag

    Another Friggin' Refi Plan?

    That's what I got out of the State of the Union Speech.

    I'm a bit nervous MREITS will take a hit this morning.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • yourbestfriendintheworld yourbestfriendintheworld Jan 26, 2012 9:56 AM Flag

      yes, it did. that was no milk factory, and a terrorist training camp was wiped out by the cruise missile even if bin laden left before it arrived.

      bubba caught the Cole bombers and put them in jail. W let them escape.

      W's means of fighting in afghanistan didn't end the Taliban, and certainly didn't catch bin Laden. Obama had to do that. and what W did by lying to start Iraq caused most of the rest of the Islamic world to think the Taliban were right, and turned our "ally," Pakistan, against us, and the Pakis are nuclear-tipped, so you're infinitely less safe now than when the war started. his illegal shift from Afghanistan to Iraq also starved the Afghan effort of staff and goods, which is why we're still there ten years later, while we're already out of Iraq because we had no business being there (and no, getting rid of tinpot Saddam wasn't reason to get thousands of good kids killed and slap the Islamic hornet's nest)

      btw, i've been correcting people saying "bubba ruined our military" for 20 years. all of the base closings and force drawdowns and materiel cuts that bubba presided over were actually planned out by Poppy Bush, who signed off on the plan made by the Joint Chiefs and NATO when the Russians took their country back and the cold war ended.

      people really have to stop listening to limbaugh and his progeny. the deliberate disinformation grows under the mental floorboards like black mold.

    • "Unprepared? I believe the U.S. won both wars, even including a surprise attack."

      Are there any survivors of the Bataan death march living still? Let's both go ask one how well we were prepared shall we? Did you know the US Army still had a little more than 10,000 horses and calvary at the start of WW2? WW1 era guns and uniforms in many cases... and how many hapless young men died because we were so far behind the power curve in training as we hurried to play catch up after being attacked?

      I think we have historically always slashed military spending WAY too much in between engagements and it's cost us dearly in lives and treasure.... but let's agree amicably to disagree. :)

      As for your statement that "We don't need a large army with stealth bombers and 10000 nukes to protect us" --- Again, allow me to respectfully disagree. Your theory isn't altogether a new one and it's been disproven in the past. While tactical missions and small forces might well be the answer for combating terrorists here & there, it always takes boots on the ground to win conventional wars.

    • Ok... I've no deire to fight with you (or anyone) - especially before another cup of coffee... *sigh* But just one thing - did shooting a cruise missile off into the desert or an empty milk factory really keep us safe? Tell that to the relatives of those who died in our embassy bombings or the parents of the sailors killed on the Cole.

    • Unprepared? I believe the U.S. won both wars, even including a surprise attack.

      I think most people grossly underestimate the military power of the U.S. To say the Soviet Union was a superpower was a stretch, a very distant number 2.

      A large professional army during peacetime is not a good thing. Former president and supreme allied commander Dwight Eisenhower warned us during his farewell speech. I suggest you watch it.

      As for Bush... He had his own agenda. Sorry, you can't connect the war on terror with Iraq. The dots don't fit.

      We don't need a large army with stealth bombers and 10000 nukes to protect us. We need a lean high trained counter terrorist army.

    • My understanding of things, limited as it is by what our government reveals for public consumption, is that the US propped up the regiem of Saddam Hussein, even supplying arms during the Iran - Iraq conflict, as a counterbalance to help contain Khomeni's Iran (since that peanut farmer failed to support Shah Reza Pahlavi).

      To the best of my knowledge, that was ONE of the key factors involved in Bush 1's decision to cease hostilities while leaving Hussein in power still when he ended the gulf war (along with promises made to gulf allies).

      He was a "friend" of convenience until he threatened another oil rich friend and had to have his leash shortened. As for Bush 2's decision to go into Iraq -- I understand the concern that he possessed WMD's, (a belief held by the Clinton administration and our allies as well), the evidence given to our agencies by British Intel that Iraq was attempting to procure yellowcake uranium in Niger, and the concern that he was actively harboring Islamic terrorists and perhaps their training camps inside Iraq. Despite the fact that I personally thought it was a terrible decision to strike preemptively, I understand that decisions are formed based on the facts available at the moment and sympathize with the decision making processin the case of that decision at the time it was arrived at.

      And yes, we live in a global economy - no doubt. But I respectfully disagree about it being inconsequential who drills for oil or secures oil & other resources. China isn't scouring the globe spending their trade surplus dollars on oil contracts and every other resource they can lock up in order to trade them. Russia isn't maneuvering politically and militarily tweaking policies and sending weapons to its ME partners because its good for business - or trade- alone. There are all sorts of dangerous currents swirling around us at the same time as our dollar faces growing challenge to its reserve currency status, and countries like China aren't locking up resources worldwide in order to sell them to us - global trade or not.

      Alliances are forming, belligerancy increases, and our power is waning with each increase in our national debt and weakening of the dollar. Meanwhile we're about to cut the military deeply - again.

      Russia's recently made it clear that an attack on Tehran would be considered the same as an attack on Moscow to them, and we know they stand with Syria (who has a mutual defense pact with Iran). What will our ruling class actually decide to do? We live in interesting times to be sure -- too interesting for my tastes.

    • Yes Olee, I too studied history some and I know that we've always taken the "peacetime dividend" and reduced the military between conflicts. That doesn't make it any less true that we then have to play catch up by large burts of spending for equipment, materials, manpower & training each time we have to ramp back up again.

      Let's not forget that Lincoln initiated an income tax (as well as a draft) during the civil war, and let's not forget how very unprepared we were at the start of WW1 & WW2. My point being that it takes a lot of money to offset those peacetime dividends and get our military back to mission ready -- like Bush had to do.

    • yourbestfriendintheworld yourbestfriendintheworld Jan 26, 2012 1:46 AM Flag

      The "previous administration" wasn't planning for invasions of nations halfway around the world, and for good reason. We were fighting the terrists symetrically until the W-nauts got into office and dropped the ball.

      And I recall exactly who it was who didn't equip the troops properly: it was the people who decided to fight two wars at once, and engaged in the second one before the Congress approved it. And by 2008, the last time my best friend got deployed to Afghanistan, the W admin still hadn't gotten the body armor upgraded to the proper spec for all forward-area troops.

      Don't go blaming the guy who kept us out of the wars for the failings of the guy who ran us headfirst into them.

    • Please read this. Silvers no bubble. Supply and damand.

      In 2002 both countries (US and Canada) produced 87.5 million oz of silver and sold 11 million Silver Eagles and Maple Leaf coins. These coins sales accounted for 12.6% of U.S. and Canadian silver production.
      In 2011, just nine years later, the U.S. and Canada are estimated to mine only 53.6 million oz of silver combined, while their total Silver Eagle and Maple Leaf coin sales are to surpass approximately 62.5 million. Thus, their coin sales are 16% greater than their total domestic silver mine supplies.
      Investors in increasing numbers over the years have been buying physical silver. While this number is growing, it is still a fraction of a fraction of the country’s population. Even though 40 million Silver Eagles were sold in 2011, this accounts for one coin for every eight Americans.
      The Great Stampede in Silver is yet to come.

    • Ummm, dang, I thought Oil and gas was politics ??? Now I'm going to have to figure out what poiltics are -- Im thinking maybe politics it's the art of lying and making one believe it's the truth ... but then that would mean truth is simply be the oposite political view point. And that would mean banning truth ... but then where would that leave us? If one's opinions is politics, that means we can't have opinions? trying to get a handle around this baning politics -- does that mean we have no conversation at all?

    • Dot Com was a bubble.
      Housing was a bubble.

      DEBT is the current bubble and it's the mother of all bubbles. When it pops, better own something free, clear and tangible.

    • View More Messages
19.70-0.11(-0.56%)Sep 23 4:00 PMEDT