One more reason to vote for Obama

[Joe Wordsworth]

Sure it can... if it is given relief from the Iraq spending.

The issues of the economy and the war are directly related. As long as we are spending billions in Iraq, we are putting the economy at risk.

As long as we're spending more than we make, we're putting the economy at risk. Much of that is the War--far from all, and replacing /that/ spending with /other/ spending won't solve the basic cash flow problem here.

As writers, we all know that the deepest part of our characters is not the how but the why.

Yes, a sex scene portraying a character with an interesting kink can be entertaining. But what is really interesting to many of us is not how the character performs the sexual act, but why it is sexual to him.

The "why" in this case (the economy going down the tube) isn't "The War", though. Its years and years of poor fiscal conservatism and bad monetary policy. Inflation, foreign debt, a mounting national debt, etc. did not get invented during the Bush Administration. Just sayin', its A problem... not THE problem.

Ask yourself these questions about Iraq. Why are we there really? It wasn't about WMD's, that seems clear at this point. Ask Colin Powell about that.

SO... why? Why Iraq?

Afghanistan? The why is simple and obvious... and valid. So, why did we put Afghanistan on the back burner over Iraq?

Who has profited from our exposure in Iraq? Every disadvantage to one person is an advantage to another. Trace the money. Whose profits have gone up in this negative economic turn? Are those industries and companies showing any connection to the Bush administration? Or, more disturbingly, to the republican party in general?

These are questions I still don't have the answers to... but I want them.

They're important questions... but they aren't the most important ones for me. I'd rather have real discourse on monetary and fiscal policy--the core philosophy and rules we choose to operate by--than a song-and-dance about The War and promising guns and butter.

 

[Belegon]

How about Sudan? How about Rwanda during the Hutu-Tutsi genocide there?

I would have supported intervention there much more strongly than in Iraq.

 

[Belegon]

As long as we're spending more than we make, we're putting the economy at risk. Much of that is the War--far from all, and replacing /that/ spending with /other/ spending won't solve the basic cash flow problem here.


The "why" in this case (the economy going down the tube) isn't "The War", though. Its years and years of poor fiscal conservatism and bad monetary policy. Inflation, foreign debt, a mounting national debt, etc. did not get invented during the Bush Administration. Just sayin', its A problem... not THE problem.


They're important questions... but they aren't the most important ones for me. I'd rather have real discourse on monetary and fiscal policy--the core philosophy and rules we choose to operate by--than a song-and-dance about The War and promising guns and butter.

I'm almost scared by the fact that you and I agree on more and more lately...

 

[rgraham666]

The invasion of Iraq had been intended for years by many of the people currently in the administration. Project For A New American Century.

Its purpose was quite clear. The invasion of Iraq was a message to the world. "All the old rules, international law, international treaties, no longer apply. The U.S. is in charge. We go where we want, when we want, for any reason we want. This is an example and you can't stop us."

Richard Perle gloating about the end of the U.N.

Richard Perle knowing the invasion was illegal and admitting it, cheerfully.

I often wondered what happened to the bullies that plagued me when I was a kid. Now I know.

 

[rgraham666]

I would have supported intervention there much more strongly than in Iraq.

The U.N. was in Rwanda at the time. Not in sufficient force to do much, but they were there.

And there was little backing by anybody on adding more force. Everybody was worried it might be their turn next. Any serious action would set a precedent that could be used against them. The U.N. doesn't have the authority to act unilaterally.

I'd recommend Shake Hands With The Devil, the memoir of the Canadian general who was in charge of U.N. forces at the time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

They're important questions... but they aren't the most important ones for me. I'd rather have real discourse on monetary and fiscal policy--the core philosophy and rules we choose to operate by--than a song-and-dance about The War and promising guns and butter.

Even though they aren't the most important, they are, still, important questions. Even to you, I think. because the motives of these people and entities just might have an important bearing on the core philosophy and rules they have handed us to live by. If, by examining them, you decide that we are in the hands of some pretty malicious authorities, it might give you a better feeling for what to do about it-- assuming, of course, that you feel anything should be done.

The war isn't a song and dance. It isn't trivial. It isn't a talking point. It is not a theory.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Even though they aren't the most important, they are, still, important questions. Even to you, I think. because the motives of these people and entities just might have an important bearing on the core philosophy and rules they have handed us to live by. If, by examining them, you decide that we are in the hands of some pretty malicious authorities, it might give you a better feeling for what to do about it-- assuming, of course, that you feel anything should be done.

Sure. But the problems, not the symptoms. The War isn't the problem with the economy (that's a symptom). Spending is a problem, Monetary Policy is a problem. If we replace The War with Spending Package X, we won't have solved the problem. I agreed that it was an important question, but I don't think it to be the most important question regarding economics in the US right now.

The war isn't a song and dance. It isn't trivial. It isn't a talking point. It is not a theory.

The War doesn't have to be a song and dance for there to be song-and-dance shows about The War. Much of the Republican and Democrat debates have been dog-and-pony shows about The War. Very few actually committed to a way to actually stop it, fewer still recognize its place in our foreign policy. The War is a war. Its also used as a talking point and a triviality and a theory. Both sides.

 

[Belegon]

If we replace The War with Spending Package X, we won't have solved the problem.

...but we wouldn't be spending that money at all without the war , Joe. That's the thing. No one is going to replace the war with "package X".

The war was never viewed from a fiscal policy standpoint. Domestic policy spending was not replaced by the war... war spending happened in addition to it.

And in order to help us forget that, we get a $600.00 check. Just like the one we got right BEFORE this spending spree started. Was that coincidence? Yeah. But this last one was deliberately designed as distraction.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

That would be interesting. I'd be surprised, and pleased, to hear any actual concrete, specific, or constructive thoughts coming out of your mouth.

That is not a "duelling snark", it's my genuine opinion.

I don't know how you've missed my universal health insurance voucher proposal (me channeling Charles Murray) - I've described it several times in these various discussions. That's about as "concrete, specific and constructive" as can be, not to mention imaginative and reality-based. I also don't know how you've missed my posts at various times speaking well of earned income tax credits. Given all that, how is your crack not a snark? Your "genuine opinion" appears to be misinformed.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

...but we wouldn't be spending that money at all without the war , Joe. That's the thing. No one is going to replace the war with "package X".

The war was never viewed from a fiscal policy standpoint. Domestic policy spending was not replaced by the war... war spending happened in addition to it.

And in order to help us forget that, we get a $600.00 check. Just like the one we got right BEFORE this spending spree started. Was that coincidence? Yeah. But this last one was deliberately designed as distraction.

I've already acknowledged we'd be sinking into debt and economic turmoil slower without The War... it would help the symptoms of our economic fuckups, but not the problem. We were spending more than we made well before The War. We're not going to fix our fiscal woes by cutting the war out.

The Democrats want to cut the war out and Obama has even made the parallel (Clinton may have, too, but I haven't heard it) between "stop the war" and "we'll have funds to fix things". But, we won't. If we stop the war, that just means we won't be taking out a $1000 loan from the bank every month to pay for our car; we'll still be taking out the $200 loan every month to pay for the high rise apartment and cellphone and etc., etc. etc. because we only make $100 a month.

I'm not saying, and haven't said, that we won't have less mounting debt without the War... I am however saying that The War isn't the problem. Fiscal conservatism (lack of it) is the problem. If all we do is cut the war, we won't have solved that problem. If we cut the war AND fund either Obama's 280 billion in new spending (adding up everything he's proposed) or Hillary's 220 billion in new spending; we certainly won't be fixing the problem.

See?

They're already proposing "Out with the War spending, in with Other spending". But even if they said "Out with the War spending, no more new spending!" we'd still be sinking into debt, inflating the money supply, and just more slowly killing the economy.

Regardless how the War was thought of (or not thought of, concerning costs), the economy will be buttfucked by the Democrat nominees--assuming they do what they say they want to do--because they will not fix the problem.

 

[S-Des]

If we cut the war AND fund either Obama's 280 billion in new spending (adding up everything he's proposed) or Hillary's 220 billion in new spending; we certainly won't be fixing the problem.

I'm curious as to where you got this number. I've heard (from a number of sources) that his actual proposals approach a trillion dollars in new spending (and that doesn't count existing programs with upward adjustments for inflation). Even if all those sources are biased, the difference between the figures is startling.

As for the war spending, that's another case of everyone using different numbers to justify their positions. Bel claims it 2 trillion dollars, an author (who was very convincing) said it would be 3 trillion, and of course Conservatives claim it will be far less. However, the claim that if we pull out, suddenly there will be a bundle of cash that we can spend on programs the Democrats want to see implemented, is completely untrue. Much of the cost built into that gigantic number is the care and support of wounded veterans (which we will feel the brunt of slowly, over time). There will be a large surge (forgive the pun) of money at the time of withdrawal, due to the moving of equipment, closing of bases, and mass movement of troops. This money will be spent no matter what, but if Obama is true to his call for withdrawal, it will hit us in his first two fiscal years, driving up the amount spent on the war during that time (so there is none of that "Left the war" money until at least the 3rd term, unless he plans on just piling it on).

Separate from this discussion is the point I made on a different thread that he really doesn't plan on withdrawing from Iraq. He plans a pull-down, but still will have a huge presence in the region (this was widely disclosed on Liberal TV & Radio shows where people expressed disappointment that his position didn't go far enough). So while the $100 - $200 billion we spend on Iraq annually would be lower under Obama than McCain, it wouldn't go from that number to $0. The problem is that this whole thing is polluted with politics. People are willing to ignore the truth if it interferes with their argument. We can't even agree how much is being spent yearly, and how much it will cost in the long run (not even within a few hundred billion). So every discussion turns into, "Bush lied," or "McCain's a warmonger," or "No blood for oil," blah...blah...blah.

So when you're on a Liberal site, Obama's the hero. When you're on a Conservative site, he's ignorant. When you're on a Moderate site, you just shake your head that people can't even be remotely honest about the discussion.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm curious as to where you got this number. I've heard (from a number of sources) that his actual proposals approach a trillion dollars in new spending (and that doesn't count existing programs with upward adjustments for inflation). Even if all those sources are biased, the difference between the figures is startling.

As for the war spending, that's another case of everyone using different numbers to justify their positions. Bel claims it 2 trillion dollars, an author (who was very convincing) said it would be 3 trillion, and of course Conservatives claim it will be far less. However, the claim that if we pull out, suddenly there will be a bundle of cash that we can spend on programs the Democrats want to see implemented, is completely untrue. Much of the cost built into that gigantic number is the care and support of wounded veterans (which we will feel the brunt of slowly, over time). There will be a large surge (forgive the pun) of money at the time of withdrawal, due to the moving of equipment, closing of bases, and mass movement of troops. This money will be spent no matter what, but if Obama is true to his call for withdrawal, it will hit us in his first two fiscal years, driving up the amount spent on the war during that time (so there is none of that "Left the war" money until at least the 3rd term, unless he plans on just piling it on).

Separate from this discussion is the point I made on a different thread that he really doesn't plan on withdrawing from Iraq. He plans a pull-down, but still will have a huge presence in the region (this was widely disclosed on Liberal TV & Radio shows where people expressed disappointment that his position didn't go far enough). So while the $100 - $200 billion we spend on Iraq annually would be lower under Obama than McCain, it wouldn't go from that number to $0. The problem is that this whole thing is polluted with politics. People are willing to ignore the truth if it interferes with their argument. We can't even agree how much is being spent yearly, and how much it will cost in the long run (not even within a few hundred billion). So every discussion turns into, "Bush lied," or "McCain's a warmonger," or "No blood for oil," blah...blah...blah.

So when you're on a Liberal site, Obama's the hero. When you're on a Conservative site, he's ignorant. When you're on a Moderate site, you just shake your head that people can't even be remotely honest about the discussion.

I haven't heard a trillion in new spending. The 280 billion I got from a report done a couple months ago that listed the spending changes each candidate (both sides) were proposing. Across the board every candidate were going to increase spending except two:

If Guiliani was to do what he said (which is a totally seperate conversation), he would have reduced federal spending by about 7 billion. Ron Paul's proposals would have cut spending by 150 billion. Everyone else would increase spending. Democrats more than Republicans, but even McCain was suggesting 60 billion more in new spending.

Problem is, its all deficit spending. If we bring in 400 billion a year and spend--normally--600 billion a year (these are not literal figures here) and the war is an additional 300 billion a year... then cutting the war out doesn't solve our problem. Just because we can keep borrowing from the Chinese and Japanese to keep the balance book looking straight doesn't fix anything.

And then don't get me started on monetary policy....

I think we should bail on the war, I wasn't for it from the get go, but regarding the economy the war isn't the problem. It's a part of the problem. But the real problem is the idea that we must spend beyond our budget and live beyond our means. When I say things like "We can't afford National Health Care", its not because I can't afford to part with more of my paycheck--I probably can and others can--its that we already (and for a long time) have to borrow money just to make ends meet, why are we talking about increasing our spending?

I love my neighbor, I'm a Christian. I will be charitable my whole life, I'm a generous enough man. But fuckdamn, just because we have checks, and just because the guy knocking at the door tells you its going to a good cause, doesn't mean you should overdraft the damn bank account. People twice and thrice my age haven't as much to worry about--oh, lets spread around the guns and butter and hand out cash to every damn little thing that makes people warm and fuzzy...

...but they're not seeing the big picture. I and my generation, and the next, and the next will be the ones paying more and more and more just to pay for these programs right now. Stop spending more than we make.

Stop.

This is one of the reasons the economy is in such a turmoil.

Basic "balance a damn checkbook" 101.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Reason Magazine, "The Trillion-Dollar War," by Veronique de Rugy, May 2008 Print Edition.

"The War on Terror is now more expensive than Vietnam or World War I--but the dishonest way Washington is paying for it may prove costliest of all.

"If the war were being accounted for based on a rational, transparent budget process instead of an opaque and politicized shell game, Americans would be painfully aware that we are now in the seventh year of what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has called a $1 trillion war."

The article explains the gimmickry used to make the real cost opaque. The comparison to 'Nam or WWI is a bit hyperventilated, however, in that as a percentage of GDP this war is much smaller, and is in fact not "that big" a deal by that yardstick. It's still a very expensive adventure.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think we should bail on the war, I wasn't for it from the get go, but regarding the economy the war isn't the problem. It's a part of the problem.

And regarding the war, the economy is only part of the problem; there's death, dismemberment, and disenfranchisment to consider as well.

 

[Guest]

And regarding the war, the economy is only part of the problem; there's death, dismemberment, and disenfranchisment to consider as well.

Yes.

Pretty horrifying all the way around.

As for Obama? He signifies hope for many.

And his ass looks very fine in dress slacks.

Just saying.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

If Obama were to go back home and run for governor and then come back in the next election with a track record of actually doing things like governing, he's be a lot more appealing. Unfortuately, all the candidates are senators and all senators do is talk, preen, raise electoral funds and get re-elected. McCain, as a military officer, has at least been in a command position. Obama has not. Fortunately, he's young enough that he has time to get his political act together and eventually get elected president. If he gets elected this time, he's going to fall on his face and let a lot of people who really believe in the guy really down. That will be tragic.

 

[Stella_Omega]

McCaine, if elected, will tank in office. Hilary will tank. Obama will tank-- there is no way that the next president will be able to make a success out of the pigsty that the Bush administration is busily constructing.

This is a one-term election, for sure.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

If Hillary tanks, it will set women back politically a decade, at least.

If McCain tanks, it will be business as usual for the old white guys (present company included, me)

If Obama tanks . . .

 

[Stella_Omega]

Unfortunately, I still can't bring myself to vote for McCain, because four years of a tyro trying not to tank would still be better for the country than four years of republicans continuing to eat our young.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I disagree, but very respectfully. Your logic is well-thought-out.

*bows*

 

[S-Des]

McCaine, if elected, will tank in office. Hilary will tank. Obama will tank-- there is no way that the next president will be able to make a success out of the pigsty that the Bush administration is busily constructing.

This is a one-term election, for sure.

Now there is something I completely agree with. In addition to the Bush mess, the housing crisis is going to take a long time to heal. As long as people are too afraid to take out loans, this thing will stretch out, housing prices will fall, and everyone will continue to take it in the shorts. None of the candidates can fix that. It's just going to take time. Personally, I wish Hillary would have won the Democratic Primary. Let her & McCain duke it out, and the winner gets 4 years and the end (hopefully) of Iraq. Then, if Obama is still going strong, you'd see huge crossover for him. You would not believe the number of Republicans who want to vote for the guy (both because they like him and because McCain is despised by a huge section of the far Right), but he's just such a big question mark (because of the lack of a record). With 4 (or maybe even 8) more years to establish himself, he'd be basically unbeatable.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Now there is something I completely agree with. In addition to the Bush mess, the housing crisis is going to take a long time to heal. As long as people are too afraid to take out loans, this thing will stretch out, housing prices will fall, and everyone will continue to take it in the shorts. None of the candidates can fix that. It's just going to take time. Personally, I wish Hillary would have won the Democratic Primary. Let her & McCain duke it out, and the winner gets 4 years and the end (hopefully) of Iraq. Then, if Obama is still going strong, you'd see huge crossover for him. You would not believe the number of Republicans who want to vote for the guy (both because they like him and because McCain is despised by a huge section of the far Right), but he's just such a big question mark (because of the lack of a record). With 4 (or maybe even 8) more years to establish himself, he'd be basically unbeatable.

yeah... That would have been a good way to go. Four years, though-- Clinton would only get one term, and McCain would die in office.

 

[S-Des]

.....and McCain would die in office.

I'm sure you'd be all broken up about that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm sure you'd be all broken up about that.

I dunno-- It depends on who the VP is. Better? Or another Halliburton sock puppet, which is what I'd expect. It's obvious that the man is not in the best of health.

 

[S-Des]

I dunno-- It depends on who the VP is.

I'll be interested to find that out myself. Romney is the easy bet (lots of money, should do well in debates, big time economic experience), but I'm pulling for the long-shot . . . Bobby Jindal from Louisiana. He's a little young, but is very popular and from everything I've heard, incredibly sharp.

BTW, I wouldn't go taking bets on McCain's health. That man is going to outlive us all.