A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on xmas eve
- Thread starter faceking
- Start date
This is what I am talking about. That book is simply an opinion. It is not a peer refereed work of scholar. You are just a dumb sheep because I promise you cannot find unanimous peer support, even from liberals. So you accepted Stiglitz premise but few else do. You are a sheep.
Here is the liberal LA Times;
Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam by year's end - Los Angeles Times
A Democratic committee paper:
War costs could total $1.6 trillion by 2009, panel estimates - CNN.com
Why don't you just admit you did not do due diligence and accept that you are a sheep? If you are this reckless with the truth you are in fact a liar.
My posts are accurate and true. Yours are subjective and lies.
BTW argue this point with facts.
>>>While no African nation has joined the ranks of the developed nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) yet, the entire continent is not utterly impoverished and there is considerable variation in its wealth. Arab North Africa has long been closely linked to the economies of Europe and the Middle East. South Africa is by far the continent's wealthiest state, both in GDP per capita and in total GDP, and its neighbors have shared in this wealth. The small but oil-rich states of Gabon and Equatorial Guinea round out the list of the ten wealthiest states in Africa.
The temperate northern and southern ends of the continent are wealthier than tropical sub-Saharan Africa. Within the tropics, East Africa, with its long pre-colonial history of trade and development, has tended to be wealthier and more stable than elsewhere. Islands such as the Seychelles, Réunion, Mauritius, and Cape Verde have remained wealthier than the continental nations, although the unstable Comoros remain poor.
The poorest states are those engaged in or just emerging from civil wars. These include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, and Burundi. In recent times, the poorest region has been the Horn of Africa, although it had historically been one of the wealthiest regions of sub-Saharan Africa. Ethiopia in particular had a long and successful history. The current poverty of the region, and the associated famines and wars, have been a problem for decades.
There is considerable internal variation within countries. Urban areas, especially capital cities, are generally wealthier than rural zones. Inequality is pronounced in most African countries; an upper class has a much higher income than the majority of the population.<<<
Sub Saharan Africa is a disaster. We carpet bombed all of Vietnam and it is now an economic locomotive. Why not Nigeria with all its oil?
Japan went from a closed feudal samarai society to a world threat in 70 years. China was a closed communist country and now is a leader of the world, in like 40 years.
I post ugly truths but truths none the less. Go hide your head in the sand, liar.
Last edited:
MovingForward
Expert Member
I feel like if it passes, those same people will be the first to sign up. Let us all be aware that the medical companies are going to continue to find ways to make money. Remember when Obama set a cap on credit card fee's well one credit card company figured well since I can't make it on credit card fee's I will charge a higher interest rate 79.9% to be exact. The cycle of greed in this country will be the downfall, not obama, not terrorist, not dems or repub.
Did you even read the link you provided? Clearly not.
The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.
War costs could total $1.6 trillion by 2009, panel estimates - CNN.com
Joseph Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank and won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 2001. War costs could total $1.6 trillion by 2009, panel estimates - CNN.com
One thing we can agree you are ugly, as ugly as ugly gets. Any more 'fags' you want to bash?
Last edited by a moderator:
Firstly as a "trans-Atlantican", who can give you facts rather than fantasies about both sides of the pond, Europeans go wild for American OUTLET stores which are up to 4 x cheaper than Europe. . To summarize Europe as ONLY healthcare and welfare is absolutely ridiculous. It all comes down to spending priorities and believe me, The USA has the most massive welfare program of all, it's called the military. Call Europeans stupid, but they just don't think it is appropriate for a person wanting to study kindergarten teaching, to spend 5 years learning to kill people first.
To the OP, I ask this: how is it any different than what the Republicans did when ramming through the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003? They broke Senate rules to pass it, hid what was in it, and lied to everyone about how it would be paid for. Even if this bill is reckless, I'd be interested in knowing where you were on the subject in 2003. And why you haven't demanded that the drug benefit be repealed.
SilverTrain
Legendary Member
The LA Times is a conservative newspaper.
And you are a troll whose posts are indeed ugly, but truth occurs in them only incidentally.
D_Tully Tunnelrat
Experimental Member
Thank you Wonbatuk!!! This has been the herd of elephants in the room in US politics, which no one is willing to touch. Unfortunately we have virtually no non-military constituency to speak up, much less be heard on the issue.
There is much outrage, from the right, about the stimulus, yet we spend as much, or more on the military, every year. If our military spending was in-line with world standards, the defense budget would be closer to $170B, not $1T, a savings of about $800B, equal to the stimulus, every year. Americans have become very cowardly people, if we need a military this large.
Unfortunately the "Health Care" bill has it's own shibboleths from the left. Universal health care is the goal, but without established standards to evaluate individual and group risk profiles, costs will escalate beyond comprehension. Most European health programs have this function, yet, in a concession to the insurance industry, both Houses of Congress were afraid to enforce this metric, instead they opted for the "public option," which although laudatory, will undoubtedly be a bureaucratic nightmare.
with all due respect, it was that massive welfare program that was needed for 50 years to protect Europe from the Warsaw Pact nations. it is a bit easier to have the ability to experiment with the social spending in a NATO country budget, say, in western europe in the 1980s, when there were over 500,000 US troops stationed in Europe, to make sure everyone was nice and safe.
when the US was spending 50 billion a year to keep troops in europe, i did not hear anyone in europe complaining about our most massive welfare program...since, it provided triple welfare to europeans...those being
1. guaranteed protection at someone elses expense
2. having to spend less on their own protection
3. the massive economic benefits of having 500,000 US troops and all their attendant needs, providing income for millions of people, towns, cities, and businesses across europe.
nobody is calling Europeans stupid, but, it is safe to say, that without the security blanket provided for by the *MASSIVE* budget of the US military, over the past 6 decades, Europeans would have had to drastically alter their budgets, form a unified european defense *without* US participation, meaning that the vanguard and main spearhead of european defense, would have required Europeans to have a unified, integrated, heavily armored and mechanized army, as well as a far larger air force, to replace the US presence.
the simple fact is, faced with the Soviets and Warsaw Pact nations over the period from post WW2 to the early 90s, the defense of western europe would have been completely impossible...not to mention, so expensive to the european states, that the ability to have such generous social budgets would have been rendered nil.
even at the height of the cold war, with massive spending by the US, NATO was greatly outnumbered by the warsaw pact forces.
the only thing, that made the defense of western europe possible, was the massive deployment of US forces, with the incredibly large financial commitments that required for both procurement of systems, and deployment/training/logistics/support but even more importantly, with the most advanced weaponry, to give NATO the qualitative edge over the Warsaw Pact, while being completely overmatched quantitatively.
just saying...it is easy to critique something when you leave out the reasons for its massive growth in the first place.
the United States could have saved a fortune by not defending europe in the post war era.
and even so, with regards to the massive "welfare" program, the US military has been cut back *DRASTICALLY* in the past 20 years. it is nowhere near the size it once was, when Europeans were at ease with letting it form the vanguard of security under which western europe could prosper.
the US armed forces have 1.475 million active service personnel and 850,ooo reserves, the vast majority of all of them in non-combat roles.
roughly 2.325 million people.
it is now roughly half the size it was at the height of the cold war in terms of percentage of the population
if you are going to lecture us about our faults of military cost, scope and dependence, fine, but, when your safety was one of the reasons for those faults, it might behoove you to be a bit more charitable in your assessment of it.
D_Tully Tunnelrat
Experimental Member
The number of US military personnel is far smaller today, in part because we no longer draft, and so we have to pay a living salary to, albeit not enough, every military service member.
What has ballooned out of control, other than two wars, one of which is entering it's 9th year, is the cost of weapons systems, which are very large profit centers for defense weapons contractors. The military budget has gone from $180B under Reagan to now somewhere north of $780B, just for the on-balance sheet direct expense items, if we can assign any degree of accuracy to the OMB's numbers. Once private contractors, rendition payments, and the VA are taken in account, etc. annual defense spending is closer to $1T, which is greater than the rest of the world combined. At a time when libraries are closed, schools have no heat, kids no text books, millions are unemployed, and millions more without health care, there are higher spending priorities. We would even be able to afford a public health option for all, if military spending were reigned-in.
What has ballooned out of control, other than two wars, one of which is entering it's 9th year, is the cost of weapons systems, which are very large profit centers for defense weapons contractors. The military budget has gone from $180B under Reagan to now somewhere north of $780B, just for the on-balance sheet direct expense items, if we can assign any degree of accuracy to the OMB's numbers. Once private contractors, rendition payments, and the VA are taken in account, etc. annual defense spending is closer to $1T, which is greater than the rest of the world combined. At a time when libraries are closed, schools have no heat, kids no text books, millions are unemployed, and millions more without health care, there are higher spending priorities. We would even be able to afford a public health option for all, if military spending were reigned-in.
true, in some regards duc, but don't forget what all of that spending supports:
1. the VA, as you mentioned. we have an obligation to those men and women that cannot be denied, in fact, i am of the opinion that the first thing that needs to be done is a $10 tax surcharge (that adjusts by inflation) on every american above the poverty line, to insure that dollar one, in every annual US budget, is spent to make sure unequivocally, that all veterans are provided for without exception, every year, with the finest facilities and support possible. no more of this nickel and dime bullshit.
2. while indeed cost of weapons systems are very expensive, we are procuring far less of them, as our qualitative edge is much more important than our qualitative edge.
Don't forget, the B2 program was cancelled by Bush 1, in 1990...there were plans to purhcase nearly 180 of them, and we purchased only 20...the cost for that system, all its facilities etc over the life of the project had Bush not killed it was close to 2 trillion dollars.
same with the SeaWolf submarine (3 built, 27 cancelled)
same with the F22 at the moment (roughly 680-750 planned, only 180 or so being built now.
don't forget, though, that the cost of all those weapons systems keeps 100s of thousands of direct defense workers employed, most of whom are blue collar (think the dockworkers/shipbuilders at Newport News, the plane builders at Boeing and Northrop Grumman, the sub builders at Electric Boat, the tank and APC builders at General Dynamics Land systems) and all their associated businesses who support those industries...
not to mention, we are the biggest exporter of those systems globally, so the largesse goes to insure our companies can export our defense products.
the defense industry contracted tremendously from what it was in the 80s.
3. as for the millions being unemployed, it would not do much good for the coutnry to add a couple more million to the rolls by slashing and burning defense spending, would it?
every base closing means the support systems and area around the base, mainly the economic area, dependent on dollars from the base, in every way, dies.
4. while i do not disagree at all that the funding of the wars has put a major pinch into our spending, it is not accurate that the defense budget is north of 780 billion.
as of the Obama administration request for 2010, The budget request includes 533.7 billion dollars for the main defense budget, which marks an increase of four percent over the main budget for fiscal 2009, excluding the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
with an extra 130 billion or so (and declining, thankfully over the coming years) requested for the two conflicts by Obama, the total budget request for 2010 was 663.7 billion
AFP: Obama seeks 663.7 bln for 2010 defense spending
in fact, the defense budget was not really unreasonable at all, on its own before the Iraq war.
as you said, it was indeed 180 billion when Reagan took over, however, the US Military of 1980, was totally antiquated, and severely weakened from the effects of the Vietnam era.
we had tremendous needs at that time, in terms of advancing our military qualitatively, as opposed to quantitatively, and many of the advanced programs were well into development and procurement before Reagan took office...he indeed increased spending and the scope of those programs, but at that time, most were necessary...even at the height of the Reagan buildup, (1986) defense spending never exceeded for than 6.2% of GDP.
and let's face it, there were some very serious overhauls needed in 1980.
-the Joint Special Operations command did not even exist. Special Ops were a nascent force back then, fragmented and problematic....today they form arguably the most important backbone of our modern armed forces.
all the major new weapons systems, had been on order and designed and approved in the 1970s to come in during the 1980s, and they were needed very badly.
some important examples...
Army
- in 1972, the decision was made that anew main battle tank was needed...the M60 was old and insufficient...the M1 Tank program was started, 8 years before Reagan came in...it was first fielded in 1980 before Reagan took office, it was and is arguably still, the best MBT around, and has formed the backbone of the US army and marine forces for close to three decades now.
- Apache helicopter was designed in the 70s and went in to production in the early 80s, and is still, today, the backbone of the helicopter force, for now and the far forseeable future.
Navy
- in 1971, the submarine force was in desperate need of modernization...the major class design began that year, and the Los Angeles Class attack Submarine, began development. the first 35 were ordered prior to 1981, and the remaining 29 newer , upgraded models were ordered during the Reagan years. 15 of them have already been decommissioned, but the remaining 50 or so will serve the Navy throughbetween now and 2030, gradually being phased out as the new Virginia Class begins phase in (which began a couple of years ago)
-same with the Ohio Class (the "Boomers" - balistic missile subs) designed in the 70s, they were ordered and procured in the late 70s, the first 9 prior to 1981, the second 9, were ordered from 1983-1992.
-of the giant Nimitz Class carriers, the first, (Nimitz) was ordered in 1967, the first 6 of the class were ordered under the LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter Administrations. 4 more were ordered during the Reagan administration, and two more, were ordered during the CLinton adminstration
even the new, revolutionary Aegis cruisers and destroyers, were planned prior to Reagan. he indeed expanded the amount of Aegis Cruisers (Ticonderoga class) procured, but the new Arleigh Burke Class destroyers (60+ ships) were ordered primarily through the Bush1 and Clinton administrations
(and the F18 fighter/bomber,which is the primary fighter/bomber on all US carriers began its life in 1977)
Air Force
- the entire 4th generation Fighter/Bomber force (F15's and F16's) were begun and designed in the 60s(F15) and 70s (F16) and ordered in the 1970s and was first delivered in 1979 (F16) and 1975 (F15)
- the B1A bomber program was started in the 60s and was to be procured during the 70s (Ford approved it, Carter then cancelled it)...Reagan approved production and procurement of the upgraded B1-B, (roughly 90 aircraft) through the 80s.
-even the F117 (the first stealth "fighter") was ordered in 1978 during the Carter administration.
-it was also Carter who first approved the MX missile system in 1979 after it had gone through a cancellation in congress in 1976.
-Of the "major" weapons systems of the time, Reagan's "babies", i.e. those ideas which were readily funded and pushed hard, were the B2 Stealth bomber program (cancelled by Bush 1 in 1990) the Seawolf, and the F22 Raptor(which was not even effectively made the "winner" in terms of the competition with the Boeing entrant until 1991)
what Reagan primarily did, spending wise, was push the accelerator on procurement of certain weapon systems, as well as for research on a wide variety of technologies, which is where many of the large costs emanated from, and while not all came to fruition (Star Wars) the massive dollars invested in these programs, did, in fact form the baseline for much of the technologies we have today across a broad range of spectrums
either way, in terms of welfare, aside from the waste and graft that of course does occur anywhere there are a large number of dollars at risk, and the DoD is certainly the biggest, the US military budget is one of the only few consistent investments our government makes that actually seem to work well for the most part. :smile:
There is so much in this thread that warrants a response but I will address just two. First, the title of the thread itself is sufficiently moronic as to render any argument by the OP effectively moot. Whether or not this bill is reckless (it does some good things, probably on balance improves the lot of most people, while not really addressing the biggest problems: for profit health insurance, the heavily subsidized production of the least healthy "food" on the planet) has nothing to do with the timing of the passage. Congress has been working on this bill for months, the overall process has been fairly well scrutinized, especially when compared to the attention given to most legislation, and the debate was the second longest in Senate history. The fact that the Senate version of the bill received no Republican support is less evidence of it's partisanship than of the GOP, at least in it's Senate representation, having become a fairly extremist party. A 60-39 vote is not a squeaker and in almost any other time in the last 30 years would have required significant cross isle compromising.
The other thing I want to say is addressed to Flashy. You do make some really good points about our military's role in protecting Western Europe (also, South Korea) during the Cold War, at great expense to ourselves and great benefit to Europeans. But now it might be time to rethink. For one, if we are going to maintain such a large military and so many engagements we need to rethink our use of contractors. I watched M*A*S*H enough as a kid to know that private contractors did not cook the food or provide security for diplomats and politicians or carry out raids. I don't think they built the latrines either, or electrocuting showers. Our military looks smaller and cheaper than it really is because of the use of these contractors. Second, now that we've seen what Western European democracies can do for their societies when they don't spend so much on defense, shouldn't we learn something from that? After all, as you've pointed out, we essentially financed the experiment.
The other thing I want to say is addressed to Flashy. You do make some really good points about our military's role in protecting Western Europe (also, South Korea) during the Cold War, at great expense to ourselves and great benefit to Europeans. But now it might be time to rethink. For one, if we are going to maintain such a large military and so many engagements we need to rethink our use of contractors. I watched M*A*S*H enough as a kid to know that private contractors did not cook the food or provide security for diplomats and politicians or carry out raids. I don't think they built the latrines either, or electrocuting showers. Our military looks smaller and cheaper than it really is because of the use of these contractors. Second, now that we've seen what Western European democracies can do for their societies when they don't spend so much on defense, shouldn't we learn something from that? After all, as you've pointed out, we essentially financed the experiment.
midlifebear
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Posts
- 5,789
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 175
- Points
- 133
- Location
- Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Ericsson1228d
Experimental Member
Looks like old Harry and Nancy may be in for a bit of trouble.
State AGs request Reid, Pelosi drop Nebraska Medicaid funds from health bill - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Hopefully, it all passes, the AGs sue the Fed, some liberal Judge rules that it is okay, and it heads to the Supreme Court where Nino and colleagues get to strike the whole damn thing down as unconstitutional.
That would be a fitting ending to this horrendous bill, and a much bigger slap in the face to the smug Pelosi, Reid and Obama.
State AGs request Reid, Pelosi drop Nebraska Medicaid funds from health bill - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Hopefully, it all passes, the AGs sue the Fed, some liberal Judge rules that it is okay, and it heads to the Supreme Court where Nino and colleagues get to strike the whole damn thing down as unconstitutional.
That would be a fitting ending to this horrendous bill, and a much bigger slap in the face to the smug Pelosi, Reid and Obama.
Similar threads
