Obama V: For Vendetta

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Neither does any of the money spent on infrastructure, or health care initiatives, or FAFSA money, etc.. Seems like a null point. The question is, are we going to get any return on investment? Can you spend a million bucks in Iraq and have any tangible outcome for the US, other than to filter that money to contracted firms and to the income of soldiers?

The point is that people like to wave "money spent in Iraq" as a bloody shirt, implying that we may as well have just had a bonfire with the cash. That's not true at all. The vast majority of the money that they're calling wasted was merely "spent" - going right back into the *US* economy. Even if there's a zero percent return on that money, that's far better than the "negative 100%" investment that it's made out to be.

There's a zero (or at least very low) percent return on the vast majority of government spending - if there were money to be made at it, private industry would be investing in it instead, and it wouldn't require government spending!

Edit to make clear: I'm not a proponent of massive government spending of any kind. I just don't see such a fundamental difference between the different kinds of spending as others do - they're mostly equally bad, IMO!

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

There's no way we'll be able to lower the debt unless we spend more money.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

I can honestly say that I have yet to hear anyone claim that an anti-Obama person is taking that view on account of race.

Remember the election (not that it's stopped since). Most of the mass media had lib columnists claiming that racism was playing a major role in the polls/voting... it was almost (not quite) disgusting enough for me to back *shudder* HRC. I don't have the links, but common estimates were that 20 - 30% of Americans base their vote on race.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Nice planet.

Help me understand. It's Bush's fault, right?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Remember the election (not that it's stopped since).

I read an article recently that showed the number of speeches President Obama has given since Inauguration Day through a day or two prior to his prime time address. The man has given more speeches than days he's been in office. It wasn't a small margin either.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

There's a zero (or at least very low) percent return on the vast majority of government spending - if there were money to be made at it, private industry would be investing in it instead, and it wouldn't require government spending!

I didn't mean a monetary return on investment (although I'm aware that's what the term "return on investment" almost always refers to). I mean that money spent internally can benefit Americans in some way that money spent to invade Iraq doesn't really do. At least when we fight al Qaeda, we're spending money to protect our country. What do we get out of Iraq?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

The $1T we are in the process of spending all counts. If you wanted to spend $1T at home, the faux-conservatives would have gone ape !#$%@#. Especially when you told them "We'll just borrow the money from the Chinese."

Sure some of that money comes back into the US economy at some point, but that doesn't change the fact that it was money we didn't have or account for.

Agree. Taxpayer money doesn't go 100% into Iraq...and it doesn't go 100% into the US. Perhaps 25% of money spent does go overseas...into fixing infrastructure, local services, etc. In the case of our German outpost...its much higher as much of US servicemen's salaries are spent overseas.

Regardless, with the dollar as brutally weak as its been...these overseas expenditures do cost the US dearly.

Really? Hmmph. I guess that accounts for all the "Fire Congress" signs. There was a real anti-incumbent fervor going on, and it was very non-partisan. One guy I talked to, when I started listing Congresspersons that I did like, interrupted me and said he wanted everyone gone, "the few good along with the bad."

Unless these protesters didn't vote...by defiinition they did vote for someone for congress. And unless they were all liberal (which I've seen no evidence) many voted for the GOP. Therefore in what their individual member of congress did and the congress as a whole did...they were individually and collectively played a definite part in US spending in the only direct form of influence they have available.

Mr. Doo, I refer you to the United States Constitution and the responsibilities enumerated to the federal government.

National defense? I see that in there.

Building bridges, roads, taking over health care, giving ridiculous money to wealthy corporations or the poor... not seeing it. Maybe you can point it out to me.

Good luck in trying hiring your own personal security guard or road workers to replace public services like a police force or road construction. I think the spirit of the Constitution is a little more flexible than you're giving it credit for.

Likewise, the Constitution doesn't say that the govt is required to overspend on military or start unnecessary wars. So your use of the Constitution to justify govt spending is a nonstarter.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Good luck in trying hiring your own personal security guard or road workers to replace public services like a police force or road construction. I think the spirit of the Constitution is a little more flexible than you're giving it credit for.

Actually, there is something in there. The Tenth Amendment.

Remind me again why state governments can't fund police and road construction, again?

Likewise, the Constitution doesn't say that the govt is required to overspend on military or start unnecessary wars.

Overspending, on a matter of constitutional power like national defense, is a simple matter of opinion.

Having just returned from Iraq, I laugh at your assertion of an "unnecessary war" and call your uninformed position a silly thing.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

What do we get out of Iraq?

A democratic Muslim nation for an ally in a region of the world where we desperately need them? Nah.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Likewise, the Constitution doesn't say that the govt is required to overspend on military or start unnecessary wars. So your use of the Constitution to justify govt spending is a nonstarter.

Yeah, the Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't exactly go around giving tons of guidelines for what the government should and shouldn't do. More than anything, it says that the US is to be a federated democratic republic. Many of our founding fathers believed in Lassiez-Faire government. But I'm not sure where people get the idea that its un-Constitutional to vote for someone who doesn't entirely share that view.

Wait, RC... how is Iraq necessary for anyone besides Iraqis?

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

A democratic Muslim nation for an ally in a region of the world where we desperately need them? Nah.

Ah yes, the good ol' "use armed forces to force people to be your ally" tactic.

Worked great for the Crusaders. And in Vietnam.

Meanwhile, bin Laden is still at large.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Wait, RC... how is Iraq necessary for anyone besides Iraqis?

Oops, reverse course, change the meaning! That'll nail him!

Screw the Iraqis! Especially the Kurds. Screw them the most.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

I can honestly say that I have yet to hear anyone claim that an anti-Obama person is taking that view on account of race.

MAUREEN DOWD - NYT 9/12/09

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Ah yes, the good ol' "use armed forces to force people to be your ally" tactic.

Worked great for the Crusaders.

Meanwhile, bin Laden is still at large.

Love the obfuscation here. Yeah, we're really "forcing them" to be our ally. If you'd been over there for even a day, you'd see how hilarious this post is to me.

So, you're one of those people who think we should have focused 100% of our focus and energy on a single human being rather than look at the entire geopolitical situation. It's like going to Iraq specifically KEPT us from finding bin Laden and winning the REAL war!

All we have to do is bag bin Laden and we can all go home, right? If that's not what you're saying, then why'd you bother bringing up bin Laden?

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Oops, reverse course, change the meaning! That'll nail him!

Screw the Iraqis! Especially the Kurds. Screw them the most.

I won't argue that getting Saddam out was great for the Iraqis.

And who knows, maybe once the insurgency dies down, things will be hunky-dory for the Iraqis.

Still doesn't mean anything in regards to our fight against al Qaeda. Other than the al Qaeda members who joined the insurgency (not certain how great in number those are...).

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Once the insurgency dies down?

That's right up there with this:

I can honestly say that I have yet to hear anyone claim that an anti-Obama person is taking that view on account of race.

You REALLY don't get out much.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Saw pictures of the mall being mostly full all the way back to the Washington Monument.

What you were seeing was likely this picture, which was posted on a lot of sites:

It's actually of a Promise Keepers rally in 1997 (among other things, the Museum of the American Indian at the top right of the mall is missing). Pictures taken yesterday like this:

show it tapering of well before the Washington Monument. I think your estimate of 200k is probably pretty accurate though.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

What you were seeing was likely this picture, which was posted on a lot of sites:

It's actually of a Promise Keepers rally in 1997 (among other things, the Museum of the American Indian at the top right of the mall is missing). Pictures taken yesterday like this:

show it tapering of well before the Washington Monument. I think your estimate of 200k is probably pretty accurate though.

Yeah, that's why I didn't base my estimates on that picture - I couldn't verify its authenticity. My first thought was that it might have been the Obama inauguration.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

So, you're one of those people who think we should have focused 100% of our focus and energy on a single human being rather than look at the entire geopolitical situation. It's like going to Iraq specifically KEPT us from finding bin Laden and winning the REAL war!

All we have to do is bag bin Laden and we can all go home, right? If that's not what you're saying, then why'd you bother bringing up bin Laden?

Because I'm bringing up al Qaeda. Not bin Laden. Al Qaeda. Anyone can be made to look like a moron when you put words in their mouth.

If you aren't the king of straw men around here...

And yes, I do believe whole heartedly that if you want to fight al Qaeda, you should fight al Qaeda. Any political benefit (regarding terrorism) that you get from having a "nice" Iraq is speculative at best. Rendering al Qaeda ineffective does not have a speculative consequence. There's no "wait 20 years and see if it worked".

Trying to overthrow "unfriendlies" in the Middle East just to sway political influence in the hopes that maybe radical Muslims won't turn to terrorism is a rather laughable option. Especially compared to, you know... actually fighting the people you want to fight.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Its amusing how neo-cons want everybody to be responsible for themselves.....UNLESS its the Iraqis, who apparently not only need the US to fight their own battles for them, but to also reconstruct the country to the tune of 1T dollars and counting. All to justify a collosal blunder by their Lord, George W Bush and his Holy Ghost - Dick Cheney. Bottom line is, had the country not gone down the road of this conservative folly, it'd be a trillion dollars richer right now.