---
Many in congress say we need to cut spending elsewhere to keep from passing this debt on to future generations. I'm guessing the administration is all on board with that idea.
---
How do you put $200 billion in perspective? Let's see; that kind of money buys about 100 B-2 stealth bombers, or maybe ten aircraft carriers. But it's so hard to tell how much these big-ticket weapon systems really cost because they do such a good job of hiding the overruns.
$200 billion is roughly what we've spent on the war in Iraq to date, but it's less than half of the $500 billion we'll spend on defense (not including Homeland Security) in 2006.
---
That brings me to a letter to the editor from today's Virginian-Pilot, my local paper. It's a repeat of a number of Rovewellian talking points about why we need to "stay the course" in Iraq, and it's a perfect example of how idiotic these arguments are.
Why Are We Rushing the Situation in Iraq?
After 9/11, we Americans were ready and willing to go to war. That war took us to Iraq, and as soon as soldiers started dying, we wanted out. Now it seems that every time the media report on action in Iraq, the report always ends with "there have been (insert number here) casualties since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations."
The majority of Americans are crying "foul" and demanding that the soldiers come home. This seems a bit hypocritical to me. Here in America, we gained our independence in 1776, but it wasn't until 1789 that we were somewhat satisfied with a working Constitution. That's 13 years!
Then, nearly a century later, a large portion of the country was not happy with that Constitution and started the Civil War to try to win the right to do things their way. It took almost a century for our country to get on its feet and gain stability. So who are we to expect a weaker, war-torn country like Iraq to be squared away overnight? Our troops are over there doing the best they can with what they have to work with.
Iraq needs our help to get the ball rolling just as we did 230 years ago. Let our soldiers do their jobs so that you can continue to do yours.
Too many Americans still gargle on this kind of sewage and can't even taste it.
Americans were ready and willing to go to war after 9/11 for the same reason they're crying "foul" now. The Bush administration lied to us about the reasons for war.
The British did not invade and occupy us in 1776 for the purpose of "liberating" us. We didn't ask them to stick around for 13 years to help us write our constitution. They had the good sense not to step into the middle of our "southern insurgency" or keep troops on our soil for a century after that to help us "get on our feet."
Iraq is a war torn country because of our presence there. Yes, our magnificent troops are doing the best they can with what they have to work with. But the best they can do isn't doing a heck of a lot of good.
And unless you work for Halliburton, I'm not sure how letting the soldiers "do their jobs" will let you keep yours.
---
There are only four areas of federal spending in the $380-550 billion range that can cover the neo-reconstruction costs: the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, Social Security payments, and the Treasury Department.
Nearly all of the Treasury's costs go toward interest payments on our nearly $8 trillion national debt. We can't cut the interest payments because we don't really make them. When the annual deficit exceeds the interest payment (which it does most years lately) we're really just adding the interest to the balance of the loan.
The neocons will make arguments like the one in today's Virginian-Pilot to avoid touching defense spending.
That leaves Social Security and Health and Human Services, which are the legacies of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
Yeah, that New Deal. The one the neocons have been trying to tear down for a long, long time.
And guess what Uncle Karl and the gang will try to dip into to buy back the south with their Neo Deal?
When do you think that even the neocons will begin to question the tax cuts?
ReplyDeleteAre they trying to destroy the republican party for a couple of generations or do they know the fix is in regarding elections?
I opt for the latter because why else would they act like they will never have to face the people come election day?
Hey, don't discount the Treasury Department. Our pResident did declare t-notes to be nothing but worthless IOU's.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, It's been obvious that his plan is to kill the New Deal, so his "haves and have mores" base can milk the country dry. When we are a third world shithole, we'll be a source of cheap labor for them too.
When dubya was buying votes with our tax dollars back in 2000, I pretty much knew it would come down to something like this. Quite frankly, he used the greed of the typical american against them.
We no longer deserve freedom, and a period of poverty and exploitation is the sacrifice patriots (if you'll excuse the use of that now soiled word) will have to make before we can re-gain it.
Bob, the true neo-con is laughing all the way to his off-shore bank. As for the republican party, that will be thrown away too, when we're milked dry.
ReplyDeleteBob and William,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure there's such a thing as Bush's plan. He just adopted the neocon line, the same way he grafted on his evangelical morality.
Jeff
Every event is just another money-making opportunity for politicians. People? Don't matter. Voters? Nope. Government programs? They're for profiting from, not for helping people (except politicians and their corporate masters).
ReplyDeleteAs long as there's a dollar they can steal, or a revenue stream they can divert, politicians will do it. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
A pyramid scheme of, by, and for the politicians (and their contributors).
ReplyDeleteWho sayd anything about it being his plan. I recognize a puppet when I see one.
ReplyDeleteJeff(not Huber), I've seen a lot of politicians over the years, but this batch is the first that have shown such a complete lack of concern for the survival of the United States of America. I don't think they plan to stick around when they're done.
No kidding, Renata.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the chart I linked to in the front page article, we spent more on Homeland Security than we did on the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, the Environmentan Protection Agency, The Department of the Interior, and NASA.
I know what you mean. My kids have four legs each. Them I can more or less protect from all this. They'll never have to fight a war or pay for one.
ReplyDeleteJeff