[mike777]

Winstonm, on Oct 24 2009, 09:22 AM, said:

Glenn Greenwald points out an unusual event: a reader challenged - and the Washington Post responded - to the Post's editorial position that Obama's health care could not increase the national debt but had no such restrictions on increased spending on the war in Afghanistan.  The reader wanted to know how the Post could justify those positions, why it was fine to go into more debt for war but increased debt could not be used to provide health care to all.

The Post's response:

Quote

All this assumes that defense and health care should be treated equally in the national budget. We would argue that they should not be . . . Universal health care, however desirable, is not "fundamental to the defense of our people." Nor is it a "necessity" that it be adopted this year: Mr. Obama chose to propose a massive new entitlement at a time of historic budget deficits. In contrast, Gen. McChrystal believes that if reinforcements are not sent to Afghanistan in the next year, the war may be lost, with catastrophic consequences for U.S. interests in South Asia. U.S. soldiers would continue to die, without the prospect of defeating the Taliban. And, as Mr. Obama put it, "if left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

I think Winston raises an interesting point.

1) Should we go into debt and if so how much to fight and win a war?


2) Should we go into debt and if so how much to fight and win decent health care for all?


My answer is....how much will you lend me before.......?

Keep in mind countries can and do disappear....see Europe, ASIA, etc etc in our lifetimes. USSR, East Germany, Yugoslavia, etc etc etc.....

OTOH if you think that the UK or Belgium, Canada, USA or etc can never disappear ok.....????

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Nov 19 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

I believe this concept is a mistake that is made all too frequently - this rather blind trust that the guys at the top have all the information to make the correct decision and lead us in the correct path.

Yeah, maybe offtopic, but I never understood what people find attractive about systems like they have in France, Russia and USA where a single person holds lots of power. I can understand that it makes elections less confusing because you just vote for the most charismatic guy rather than for the party that has the highest average level of charisma among its 100+ nominees, but seriously: does anyone believe that a single person can make informed decisions on hundreds of issues ranging from health care to warfare to bank bailouts?

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Nov 18 2009, 11:18 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 18 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

Quote

He is the president, he must decide if it is worth it, and if it is then he must find a way to get the country behind it,

I believe this concept is a mistake that is made all too frequently - this rather blind trust that the guys at the top have all the information to make the correct decision and lead us in the correct path.

I know you won't be surprised that I agree with Ken 100% on this. Obama is not going to get the country behind him on this by asking for blind trust. He is going to have to explain what makes the war worth the cost and convince a lot of people that he's right. He won't convince everyone no matter what he does, but that goes without saying.

Obama seems to think he can make that case. That seems like a tall order to me, but I'll listen to what he says.

I also agree with Ken's point that if a war is vital to preserve the very security of the nation, any half-assed approach is ridiculous.

The point is not whether or not Obama can convince the nation but can he make the right choice? Generals always want more troops - but they are not the best source to ask IF we should be at war.

LBJ faced this same task and ended up getting bad advice which the nation would not buy.

[vuroth]

Winstonm, on Oct 24 2009, 09:22 AM, said:

Quote

All this assumes that defense and health care should be treated equally in the national budget. We would argue that they should not be . . . Universal health care, however desirable, is not "fundamental to the defense of our people." Nor is it a "necessity" that it be adopted this year: Mr. Obama chose to propose a massive new entitlement at a time of historic budget deficits. In contrast, Gen. McChrystal believes that if reinforcements are not sent to Afghanistan in the next year, the war may be lost, with catastrophic consequences for U.S. interests in South Asia. U.S. soldiers would continue to die, without the prospect of defeating the Taliban. And, as Mr. Obama put it, "if left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

Am I to understand that the point of this is that the President has a mandated responsibility for defense, but not for healthcare? That the President addressing the defense of American lives from foreign threats is in his job description, but that addressing affordable healthcare is not?

If so, is this a valid constitutional argument? Even if it is, does the President have no mandate to amend priorities, even the constitution, if he feels that it is warranted?

I'm a foreigner, and don't know, so I'm asking.

[helene_t]

vuroth, on Nov 19 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

does the President have no mandate to amend priorities, even the constitution, if he feels that it is warranted?

No the president can't amend the constitution.

However this has nothing to do with the gvt's budget, it's not like the constitution says that defense should have priority above health care w.r.t. finances.

[hanp]

mike777, on Nov 19 2009, 12:37 AM, said:

1) Should we go into debt

Oops, too late!

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Nov 19 2009, 08:34 AM, said:

The point is not whether or not Obama can convince the nation but can he make the right choice?  Generals always want more troops - but they are not the best source to ask IF we should be at war.

LBJ faced this same task and ended up getting bad advice which the nation would not buy.

I agree, Winston, and did not intend to suggest otherwise.

You seem to feel that pulling out the troops now is absolutely the right decision, and so do more and more voters. Others (including some with a financial interest) strongly argue that staying in is mandatory.

I think Obama's decision is very difficult, given the present circumstances and the history of our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whatever decision he makes, Obama will have to it explain well.

I certainly don't think that Obama is in the pocket of the military-industrial complex and would sacrifice lives to pump more money to those people. For the record, I don't think that George W. Bush, as poor a president as he was, consciously did that either.

Helene, the constitution gives congress the authority to declare war -- properly so, in my opinion -- and for a long time the very idea of a "standing army" was anathema in the US. That idea changed after WWII, and the congress has allowed the executive branch to usurp much of the power to declare war. President Eisenhower warned the US about what was happening, but we let it happen anyway.

The usual justification given for this change is a practical one: it is very difficult to get congress to declare war and to authorize the taxes to pay for it. The late entry of the US into WWII resulted from the absolute refusal of the republican party to support the US military until after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

In those days, the republican party was for conservation, civil rights, and fiscal responsibility, and against war and corporate monopolies. Today they stand for the exact opposite.

[blackshoe]

The idea of a standing army is still anathema to some of us - even some of us who made a career of military service.

Politics is nothing if not flexible. One generation's "liberal" party is the next's "conservative" and vice versa. Doesn't matter. Labels aren't important anyway - it's what they do that matters.

One of the principles the Founders espoused is that we should not get involved in Europe's wars. Many people (not just Republican Congressmen) of my father's and grandfathers' generations still felt that way in the first half of the 20th Century. So I don't think you can blame "the Republican Party" for our failure to declare war until we were attacked.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Nov 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

The idea of a standing army is still anathema to some of us - even some of us who made a career of military service.

Politics is nothing if not flexible. One generation's "liberal" party is the next's "conservative" and vice versa. Doesn't matter. Labels aren't important anyway - it's what they do that matters.

One of the principles the Founders espoused is that we should not get involved in Europe's wars. Many people (not just Republican Congressmen) of my father's and grandfathers' generations still felt that way in the first half of the 20th Century. So I don't think you can blame "the Republican Party" for our failure to declare war until we were attacked.

I certainly agree with you about labels. But I do think it impractical now, because of current technology, to disarm until attacked.

I'm not "blaming" the republican party for not declaring war before Pearl Harbor, just pointing out that a strongly isolationist group of republicans at that time staunchly opposed getting involved and prevented a buildup of the US military precisely to prevent such an involvement. When the US was attacked by Japan and then Germany declared war on the US, our military had a lot of catching up to do to fight effectively on both fronts. The isolationists had a lot of support back then, including from members of my own family. In fact, the word "war" was frequently expanded to "democrat war."

Of course, plenty of democrats shared the isolationist view, and Roosevelt clearly shaped his message to appeal to those voters too.

[mike777]

Perhaps now is a good time to not have a standing army, airforce or navy. We could channel the savings into helping the poor. With the Republicans/NeoCons out of power now maybe we can get this passed.

[vuroth]

blackshoe, on Nov 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

So I don't think you can blame "the Republican Party" for our failure to declare war until we were attacked.

Which time? (You do know the WTC was attacked twice, right?)

[blackshoe]

I didn't say anything about disbanding all military forces. The Navy (including the Marine Corps) serves a different (and necessary, IMO) purpose than the Army.

Nor did I say anything at all like "let's take the money we save by firing all these warmongering military types and spend it on other things". Frankly, if there's a reduction in necessary expenditures, we ought to either use the "savings" to pay off the damn debt, or cut taxes.

Nor did I say "disarm until attacked". While it is true that the day when you could say "okay, folks, grab your rifles and let's go - there's a war to fight" is long gone (if it ever really existed), it is also true that a small, very well trained, highly mobile armed force could deal with most immediate problems at least until we get the Juggernaut mobilized. That is, in fact, the traditional purpose (one of them, anyway) for the Marine Corps. I will grant the MC won't help much against large numbers of nuclear ICBMs, or for that matter large numbers of smuggled 'suitcase' nukes, or any of several other potential modern threats - but a large standing army isn't much use against those threats either.

[blackshoe]

vuroth, on Nov 19 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

So I don't think you can blame "the Republican Party" for our failure to declare war until we were attacked.

Which time? (You do know the WTC was attacked twice, right?)

No, I haven't heard anything about the WTC. When did that happen? And what's a WTC, anyway?

Maybe if you'd read the thread, you'd have realized we were talking about World War II. Or maybe not.

[mike777]

OK, I guess even if we just start with not having a standing army that might be a good first step. We can discuss getting rid of a standing airforce later I guess. I am not sure how big of a Navy we really need but in any event one step at a time.


As Winston has pointed out if having an army in Europe or Asia or Korea or elsewhere makes people hate us that may be a good first step to send all of them home and out of the army.


I dont mind paying down the debt but this thread was all about going into debt to pay for healthcare, regardless of how much it costs, yes?


btw in other threads the analogy of the having healthcare be a service just as the police and fire dept are was brought up.

The problem with this analogy is that if I have a fire or am robbed the police or fire dept dont fix my house up. I still got to pay for that. Perhaps we should have the police or fire dept also pay to make everything better again.

[ArtK78]

mike777, on Nov 19 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Perhaps now is a good time to not have a standing army, airforce or navy. We could channel the savings into helping the poor. With the Republicans/NeoCons out of power now maybe we can get this passed.

That is a very impractical view of how a nation must behave in today's world.

Yes, it is extremely important to address all of the social issues. But it is equally (or perhaps even more) important to maintain a standing army to address the realities of world affairs.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Nov 19 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

I didn't say anything about disbanding all military forces. The Navy (including the Marine Corps) serves a different (and necessary, IMO) purpose than the Army.

Thanks for the clarification. I should have realized that's what you meant. BTW, was your service in the Army?

[mike777]

I note we are only spending about 14,000$ per student for education in some places. This works out to 420,000$ for a classroom of 30 students per year. Yet we still have drop out rates of around 40% in places. Hopefully more money will help.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on Nov 19 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

BTW, was your service in the Army?

Some of it. Three years Army active duty, seventeen years Navy.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Nov 19 2009, 06:32 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Nov 19 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

BTW, was your service in the Army?

Some of it. Three years Army active duty, seventeen years Navy.

I truly appreciate your service to the country.

[Winstonm]

Quote

You seem to feel that pulling out the troops now is absolutely the right decision, and so do more and more voters. Others (including some with a financial interest) strongly argue that staying in is mandatory.

I favor what works and oppose what does not work. I think Glenn Greenwald has nailed this pretty well, presenting compelling evidence over a number of posts that the Neocon who support war and intervention virtually everywhere is truly the greater enemy of American ideals while study after study shows that non-confrontation works much better at eliminating terror threats than military intervention.

Interested parties can go here and read through Greenwald's latest posts and his older ones as well: http://www.salon.com...lenn_greenwald/