Who will tell the people?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

This article reads like a laundry list of reasons I hate that we are stuck in Iraq. The money we're throwing into that self-inflicted open sore makes me want to strangle somebody.

Who Will Tell the People?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: May 4, 2008

Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I’ve had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today it’s this: People want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America.

They are not only tired of nation-building in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with so little to show for it. They sense something deeper — that we’re just not that strong anymore. We’re borrowing money to shore up our banks from city-states called Dubai and Singapore. Our generals regularly tell us that Iran is subverting our efforts in Iraq, but they do nothing about it because we have no leverage — as long as our forces are pinned down in Baghdad and our economy is pinned to Middle East oil.

Our president’s latest energy initiative was to go to Saudi Arabia and beg King Abdullah to give us a little relief on gasoline prices. I guess there was some justice in that. When you, the president, after 9/11, tell the country to go shopping instead of buckling down to break our addiction to oil, it ends with you, the president, shopping the world for discount gasoline.

We are not as powerful as we used to be because over the past three decades, the Asian values of our parents’ generation — work hard, study, save, invest, live within your means — have given way to subprime values: “You can have the American dream — a house — with no money down and no payments for two years.”

That’s why Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous defense of why he did not originally send more troops to Iraq is the mantra of our times: “You go to war with the army you have.” Hey, you march into the future with the country you have — not the one that you need, not the one you want, not the best you could have.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.

How could this be? We are a great power. How could we be borrowing money from Singapore? Maybe it’s because Singapore is investing billions of dollars, from its own savings, into infrastructure and scientific research to attract the world’s best talent — including Americans.

And us? Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, just told a Senate hearing that cutbacks in government research funds were resulting in “downsized labs, layoffs of post docs, slipping morale and more conservative science that shies away from the big research questions.” Today, she added, “China, India, Singapore ... have adopted biomedical research and the building of biotechnology clusters as national goals. Suddenly, those who train in America have significant options elsewhere.”

Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.

I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”

It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach for America. They want our country to matter again. They want it to be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, “no one can touch us.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/...&ei=5087%0A

Between the Iraq boondoggle and the stupid Medicare Rx plan, Bush has utterly squandered our money. Makes me wish we could do recall elections and kick people out early. I appreciate the conservative justices on the SCOTUS, but other than that and one or two other small decisions, I think his term in office has been an utter failure. And he's quite possibly the worst president we've ever had at managing our money.

[otterinbham 0]

I tend to respect Friedman's columns. It's also why I became an independent.

What the Republican party did after the 2000 elections just sickens me. Rather than lay the solid groundwork for the country's economic future, the Republican Party, with Bush at the helm, began spending money like a pimp with a week to live--in total contradiction to its proven economic principles.

We can argue Iraq all day long, and both sides have good points to make. But the metastasising Federal Government we have today has to ultimately blamed on the current occupant of the Oval Office. The man has a Veto stamp in his desk and still has an veto-proof margin in Congress. Yet he gleefully continues to sign off on every spending bill that gets submitted. There was no overhaul of the entitlement agencies of government, despite all the warnings of economists and demographers alike.

So what now? Of course, the more partisan people on this board will jump to their feet and predictably shriek, "But the Democrats...." Well, you have a point. But right now, it's the Republicans who are the big spenders. And blindly defending BushCo means that you put party over principle and over country. In fact, anybody who votes straight party tickets in the face of both parties' abject betrayal of national interest is a contemptible fool, to be considered in the same light as the Flat Earth Society.

Now, the Democrats are looking to have a good election. But what does it really mean for the country if they win? There's been considerable debate over the question of corporate taxes being too low, without anybody realizing that corporate taxes are now the 2nd highest of any industrialized country. Everybody's getting on the nationalized healthcare express, without really coming too the terms that the partial nationalization of healthcare in this country led to the mushrooming of healthcare costs in the first place--the very problem that nationalized healthcare was supposed to fix. The rest of the world is turning away from Keynsian economics as a dismal failure. In our own national experience, we knew that the programs of Lyndon Johnson were dismal failures. So why does the Democratic Party continue to embrace this discredited ideology? And why do the Republicans abet it?

So both parties are now pandering to the American people by offering up the usual grab bag of election promises: Free healthcare. Social Security kept just the way it is. And the list goes on and on. All without realizing how both gangs of idiots are slowly wrecking the greatest economy in world history.

[WinCrimson 61]

Don't sweat it.

It's nothing a flag lapel pin can't solve.

[otterinbham 0]

Don't sweat it.

It's nothing a flag lapel pin can't solve.

Hey, be flip all you want. But none of these three candidates have what it takes to be president. We'll have to choose the one who will cause the least amount of damage, I'm afraid.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Sounds like a left wing fluff piece that ignores the war on terror. Financially things could have been done better. But Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else the war on terror is being waged, is certainly one of the most important things this president and this generation has undertaken. To discount that is plain ignorance.

The trend toward throwing Iraq in as an economic disaster is really sickening. If just one of you anti-Iraq folks had a loved one blown up here in the states, you would change your mind. I am thankful the fight is in the middle east.

This is nothing more than another attack on Bush. (I don't mind the fiscal criticism) Achmed says "Hope Lives". You should all jump aboard the appeasment train.

[otterinbham 0]

Sounds like a left wing fluff piece that ignores the war on terror. Financially things could have been done better. But Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else the war on terror is being waged, is certainly one of the most important things this president and this generation has undertaken. To discount that is plain ignorance.

The trend toward throwing Iraq in as an economic disaster is really sickening. If just one of you anti-Iraq folks had a loved one blown up here in the states, you would change your mind. I am thankful the fight is in the middle east.

This is nothing more than another attack on Bush. (I don't mind the fiscal criticism) Achmed says "Hope Lives". You should all jump aboard the appeasment train.

The problem with your critique is that you seem to think that the country's financial strength has nothing to do with the country's future military strength. The exact opposite is true. The fact that this country has pursued a stupid, short-sighted Guns AND Butter fiscal policy will result in a starved military budget and higher taxes.

The sad, lamentable truth of the matter is that, with just the slightest amount of fiscal discipline on the part of the Republican congress and the Bush administration (By that, I mean just having government non-military spending increase at the same rate as inflation), this country could have afforded its occupation in Iraq and actually had an enormous budget surplus.

Instead, we have a huge deficit while funding a costly military presence. This will have a decided emphasis on future decision making and will almost inevitably lead to higher taxes as well.

So, yeah, it's an attack on Bush. A highly-deserved attack.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Sounds like a left wing fluff piece that ignores the war on terror. Financially things could have been done better. But Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else the war on terror is being waged, is certainly one of the most important things this president and this generation has undertaken. To discount that is plain ignorance.

The trend toward throwing Iraq in as an economic disaster is really sickening. If just one of you anti-Iraq folks had a loved one blown up here in the states, you would change your mind. I am thankful the fight is in the middle east.

This is nothing more than another attack on Bush. (I don't mind the fiscal criticism) Achmed says "Hope Lives". You should all jump aboard the appeasment train.

The problem with your critique is that you seem to think that the country's financial strength has nothing to do with the country's future military strength. The exact opposite is true. The fact that this country has pursued a stupid, short-sighted Guns AND Butter fiscal policy will result in a starved military budget and higher taxes.

The sad, lamentable truth of the matter is that, with just the slightest amount of fiscal discipline on the part of the Republican congress and the Bush administration (By that, I mean just having government non-military spending increase at the same rate as inflation), this country could have afforded its occupation in Iraq and actually had an enormous budget surplus.

Instead, we have a huge deficit while funding a costly military presence. This will have a decided emphasis on future decision making and will almost inevitably lead to higher taxes as well.

So, yeah, it's an attack on Bush. A highly-deserved attack.

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

No drop of rain thinks it is the cause of the flood.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Sounds like a left wing fluff piece that ignores the war on terror. Financially things could have been done better. But Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else the war on terror is being waged, is certainly one of the most important things this president and this generation has undertaken. To discount that is plain ignorance.

The trend toward throwing Iraq in as an economic disaster is really sickening. If just one of you anti-Iraq folks had a loved one blown up here in the states, you would change your mind. I am thankful the fight is in the middle east.

This is nothing more than another attack on Bush. (I don't mind the fiscal criticism) Achmed says "Hope Lives". You should all jump aboard the appeasment train.

The problem with your critique is that you seem to think that the country's financial strength has nothing to do with the country's future military strength. The exact opposite is true. The fact that this country has pursued a stupid, short-sighted Guns AND Butter fiscal policy will result in a starved military budget and higher taxes.

The sad, lamentable truth of the matter is that, with just the slightest amount of fiscal discipline on the part of the Republican congress and the Bush administration (By that, I mean just having government non-military spending increase at the same rate as inflation), this country could have afforded its occupation in Iraq and actually had an enormous budget surplus.

Instead, we have a huge deficit while funding a costly military presence. This will have a decided emphasis on future decision making and will almost inevitably lead to higher taxes as well.

So, yeah, it's an attack on Bush. A highly-deserved attack.

The article didn't say that. You did. The article was blaming Iraq for taking away money that would be spent here (yeah right). It also attacked Bush on an energy policy that wasn't needed in anyone's eyes until Katrina. I agree and have said all along that the fiscal policies of this admin have been too loose. But if you take Iraq out of the equation, you still have the possibility of an attack on our soil. We are keeping the terrorists busy in their part of the world. There have been NO FREAKING ATTACKS SINCE 9/11. Where is the credit shown for that. And just how much is that worth? We all agree that with restraint in spending we would be sitting pretty now. But this guy is intent on wailing about everything and never once gives thanks for his safety. It's the same with all Americans, they can't see it from their house so why give a s***. But then I guess since Bush invented a fictional war on terror, he should be blamed for spending money on that too.

Can achmed keep us this safe with his proposed appeasement?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Sounds like a left wing fluff piece that ignores the war on terror. Financially things could have been done better. But Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else the war on terror is being waged, is certainly one of the most important things this president and this generation has undertaken. To discount that is plain ignorance.

The trend toward throwing Iraq in as an economic disaster is really sickening. If just one of you anti-Iraq folks had a loved one blown up here in the states, you would change your mind. I am thankful the fight is in the middle east.

This is nothing more than another attack on Bush. (I don't mind the fiscal criticism) Achmed says "Hope Lives". You should all jump aboard the appeasment train.

The problem with your critique is that you seem to think that the country's financial strength has nothing to do with the country's future military strength. The exact opposite is true. The fact that this country has pursued a stupid, short-sighted Guns AND Butter fiscal policy will result in a starved military budget and higher taxes.

The sad, lamentable truth of the matter is that, with just the slightest amount of fiscal discipline on the part of the Republican congress and the Bush administration (By that, I mean just having government non-military spending increase at the same rate as inflation), this country could have afforded its occupation in Iraq and actually had an enormous budget surplus.

Instead, we have a huge deficit while funding a costly military presence. This will have a decided emphasis on future decision making and will almost inevitably lead to higher taxes as well.

So, yeah, it's an attack on Bush. A highly-deserved attack.

The article didn't say that. You did. The article was blaming Iraq for taking away money that would be spent here (yeah right). It also attacked Bush on an energy policy that wasn't needed in anyone's eyes until Katrina. I agree and have said all along that the fiscal policies of this admin have been too loose. But if you take Iraq out of the equation, you still have the possibility of an attack on our soil. We are keeping the terrorists busy in their part of the world. There have been NO FREAKING ATTACKS SINCE 9/11. Where is the credit shown for that. And just how much is that worth? We all agree that with restraint in spending we would be sitting pretty now. But this guy is intent on wailing about everything and never once gives thanks for his safety. It's the same with all Americans, they can't see it from their house so why give a s***. But then I guess since Bush invented a fictional war on terror, he should be blamed for spending money on that too.

Can achmed keep us this safe with his proposed appeasement?

1. Friedman is not a left-winger.

2. The $400 billion spent in Iraq could have been spent here or at least still be in our hands instead of squandered elsewhere.

3. No one said anything about Afghanistan because it was justified based on actual terrorists being trained and deployed from there. Iraq had none of those things going on.

4. You're using simplistic logic. We could have kept terrorists busy by handling our s*** in Afghanistan like we should have rather than opening up an unnecessary front elsewhere. Being in Iraq is not therefore the reason we haven't had another attack on US soil. To insist otherwise is just engaging in rank speculation.

5. It's not that Bush invented a fictional war on terror. It's that he used the real war on terror as a pretense to a stupid and ill-conceived war in Iraq.

[otterinbham 0]

Sounds like a left wing fluff piece that ignores the war on terror. Financially things could have been done better. But Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else the war on terror is being waged, is certainly one of the most important things this president and this generation has undertaken. To discount that is plain ignorance.

The trend toward throwing Iraq in as an economic disaster is really sickening. If just one of you anti-Iraq folks had a loved one blown up here in the states, you would change your mind. I am thankful the fight is in the middle east.

This is nothing more than another attack on Bush. (I don't mind the fiscal criticism) Achmed says "Hope Lives". You should all jump aboard the appeasment train.

The problem with your critique is that you seem to think that the country's financial strength has nothing to do with the country's future military strength. The exact opposite is true. The fact that this country has pursued a stupid, short-sighted Guns AND Butter fiscal policy will result in a starved military budget and higher taxes.

The sad, lamentable truth of the matter is that, with just the slightest amount of fiscal discipline on the part of the Republican congress and the Bush administration (By that, I mean just having government non-military spending increase at the same rate as inflation), this country could have afforded its occupation in Iraq and actually had an enormous budget surplus.

Instead, we have a huge deficit while funding a costly military presence. This will have a decided emphasis on future decision making and will almost inevitably lead to higher taxes as well.

So, yeah, it's an attack on Bush. A highly-deserved attack.

The article didn't say that. You did. The article was blaming Iraq for taking away money that would be spent here (yeah right). It also attacked Bush on an energy policy that wasn't needed in anyone's eyes until Katrina. I agree and have said all along that the fiscal policies of this admin have been too loose. But if you take Iraq out of the equation, you still have the possibility of an attack on our soil. We are keeping the terrorists busy in their part of the world. There have been NO FREAKING ATTACKS SINCE 9/11. Where is the credit shown for that. And just how much is that worth? We all agree that with restraint in spending we would be sitting pretty now. But this guy is intent on wailing about everything and never once gives thanks for his safety. It's the same with all Americans, they can't see it from their house so why give a s***. But then I guess since Bush invented a fictional war on terror, he should be blamed for spending money on that too.

Can achmed keep us this safe with his proposed appeasement?

Here's the thing. All you did was read the word IRAQ and see the by-line of the New York Times, and you went into hyperventilation.

Actually Friedman, who is a moderate, is making a broader point: The politicians of this country have been telling us that the people of the United States do not have to make choices. So, as a result, we are spending ourselves into a giant hole and crippling our long-term economic competitiveness.

Want to invade Iraq? Fine. Want to give away free pills to senior citizens, already the wealthiest age group in the country? Sure thing. Want to make Uncle Sam the funder for every playground, highway bridge, opera company, and tobacco farmer in America? Not a problem! Just sign here, and we'll take care of it all. Don't worry, Sir, your kids and grandkids will pick up the tab.

Oh, and while we're at it, sure thing, drive that 9 seat SUV that gets nine yards to the gallon for trips to the grocery store a half-mile away. And gas that's $4.00 a gallon? Well that is a pity, because one has nothing to do with the other. So, yeah, even though we faced periodic oil cutoffs and price hikes that have disrupted the economy and generally held us hostage for 34 years, we don't actually need an energy policy. If the price of gas is too high, let's just eliminate the gas tax so people can drive to Disney World or commute fifty miles a day with a minimum of grumbling.

Democracy is about making choices. The problem is that we're not making any. We're expecting all of it delivered to us on a silver platter without sacrifice or determining priorities. It's really time that we not only have politicians who aren't glib halfwits, but can speak reality to the American people.

That's the appeal of Obama, even though beneath his smooth veneer he's just another party hack. He actually pretends to listen to the American people. Of course, he follows up with telling them what they want to hear, rather than telling them to suck it up and make this a better country. But Friedman is right. What the American people want more than anything is for someone to stare at them during an 8 p.m. address to the nation (By the way, when's the last time you've seen one of those? Five years? Eight years? Today, the president doesn't even go through the motions of addressing the nation on a regular basis) and tell them the awful truth.

[CCTAU 3,350]

I guess the part I mentioned referring to the thoughts on a failed energy policy went right over your head. You are so expecting me to disagree with you that you made up a new fantasy. Hope it didn't keep you awake too late.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

You had one sentence about energy policy in your whole response and that's the only thing you come back about?

[otterinbham 0]

I guess the part I mentioned referring to the thoughts on a failed energy policy went right over your head. You are so expecting me to disagree with you that you made up a new fantasy. Hope it didn't keep you awake too late.

Actually you said that nobody ever even considered an energy policy until after Katrina. First, it's not true. Second, it's critical from a geopolitical point of view. A more accurate wording would be, "Nobody in the Bush Administration ever considered an energy policy until after Katrina." Now that would be accurate.

Want to take away terrorists source of power? Want to drive the Arab world back into the Medieval period from which they emerged 40 years ago? Want to relegate Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and all other countries into irrelevancy? Then have a national energy policy that reduces the country's reliance on a bunch of loopy dictatorships. Part of it is lowering consumption. Part of it is developing internal sources of production. All of it requires an administration willing to lead, not just react to the events of the day.

[LegalEagle 22]

I saw on the news last night that it will take $320,000,000 to fix our broken water lines in this country. Just think where we'd be if we'd have hired a plumber instead of Blackwater. American money spent on American soil and placed in the hands of Americans. Wouldn't our economy be much brighter?

[Shire5k 19]

Sounds like a left wing fluff piece that ignores the war on terror. Financially things could have been done better. But Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else the war on terror is being waged, is certainly one of the most important things this president and this generation has undertaken. To discount that is plain ignorance.

The trend toward throwing Iraq in as an economic disaster is really sickening. If just one of you anti-Iraq folks had a loved one blown up here in the states, you would change your mind. I am thankful the fight is in the middle east.

This is nothing more than another attack on Bush. (I don't mind the fiscal criticism) Achmed says "Hope Lives". You should all jump aboard the appeasment train.

The problem with your critique is that you seem to think that the country's financial strength has nothing to do with the country's future military strength. The exact opposite is true. The fact that this country has pursued a stupid, short-sighted Guns AND Butter fiscal policy will result in a starved military budget and higher taxes.

The sad, lamentable truth of the matter is that, with just the slightest amount of fiscal discipline on the part of the Republican congress and the Bush administration (By that, I mean just having government non-military spending increase at the same rate as inflation), this country could have afforded its occupation in Iraq and actually had an enormous budget surplus.

Instead, we have a huge deficit while funding a costly military presence. This will have a decided emphasis on future decision making and will almost inevitably lead to higher taxes as well.

So, yeah, it's an attack on Bush. A highly-deserved attack.

The article didn't say that. You did. The article was blaming Iraq for taking away money that would be spent here (yeah right). It also attacked Bush on an energy policy that wasn't needed in anyone's eyes until Katrina. I agree and have said all along that the fiscal policies of this admin have been too loose. But if you take Iraq out of the equation, you still have the possibility of an attack on our soil. We are keeping the terrorists busy in their part of the world. There have been NO FREAKING ATTACKS SINCE 9/11. Where is the credit shown for that. And just how much is that worth? We all agree that with restraint in spending we would be sitting pretty now. But this guy is intent on wailing about everything and never once gives thanks for his safety. It's the same with all Americans, they can't see it from their house so why give a s***. But then I guess since Bush invented a fictional war on terror, he should be blamed for spending money on that too.

Can achmed keep us this safe with his proposed appeasement?

Since when did Iraq have anything to do with the war on terror? The war on terror was/is being fought in Afghanistan...Iraq was a totally different scenario. Sorry to burst your bubble, but had Iraq been left alone Hussein would not have attacked us; he was content with what he was doing...and that is not building WMDs.

[otterinbham 0]

I saw on the news last night that it will take $320,000,000 to fix our broken water lines in this country. Just think where we'd be if we'd have hired a plumber instead of Blackwater. American money spent on American soil and placed in the hands of Americans. Wouldn't our economy be much brighter?

Actually, the economy would be much brighter if we didn't succumb to the chicken littles in the media who find the most exaggerated possible claims in order to grab the viewer's attention.

It's kind of like the statistic I brought up on the board the other day, that ultimately claimed that 1 home in every 7 in the United States was vacant due to the mortgage crisis. The news organizations uncritically passed on this information without ever actually vetting the information.

[RunInRed 16,494]

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

No drop of rain thinks it is the cause of the flood.

There is plenty of blame to go around but just for the record, we have had a Republican Administration in the White House for the past 8 years AND the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 2000-2006. So it's kind of hard not to put the blame on them.

Thankfully, John McCain was standing up against all these "earmarks" all along...of course didn't he also say once that we could not afford Bush's tax cuts at a time of war...or maybe he's for the tax cuts now...I can't remember

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

Gotta say, to try and lay the crazy ass spending of the last eight years at the Dems feet doesn't hold water. We had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president for most of that time. The GOP Congress sent spending bills that were way out of whack and Bush seemed to have lost his veto stamp every time one came through. He's the one that pushed hard for the Medicare Rx plan.

Just because the Dems went along with some of it doesn't mean you can equally assign blame this time.

[LegalEagle 22]

I saw on the news last night that it will take $320,000,000 to fix our broken water lines in this country. Just think where we'd be if we'd have hired a plumber instead of Blackwater. American money spent on American soil and placed in the hands of Americans. Wouldn't our economy be much brighter?

Actually, the economy would be much brighter if we didn't succumb to the chicken littles in the media who find the most exaggerated possible claims in order to grab the viewer's attention.

It's kind of like the statistic I brought up on the board the other day, that ultimately claimed that 1 home in every 7 in the United States was vacant due to the mortgage crisis. The news organizations uncritically passed on this information without ever actually vetting the information.

Huh? Did you not get my point? Or did I fail to make one?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

No drop of rain thinks it is the cause of the flood.

There is plenty of blame to go around but just for the record, we have had a Republican Administration in the White House for the past 8 years AND the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 2000-2006. So it's kind of hard not to put the blame on them.

Thankfully, John McCain was standing up against all these "earmarks" all along...of course didn't he also say once that we could not afford Bush's tax cuts at a time of war...or maybe he's for the tax cuts now...I can't remember

You can damn sure bet your little ass that Obama wasn't against earmarks can't you? How big of a raise did his wife get from earmarks?

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

Gotta say, to try and lay the crazy ass spending of the last eight years at the Dems feet doesn't hold water. We had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president for most of that time. The GOP Congress sent spending bills that were way out of whack and Bush seemed to have lost his veto stamp every time one came through. He's the one that pushed hard for the Medicare Rx plan.

Just because the Dems went along with some of it doesn't mean you can equally assign blame this time.

Both of you need to get a grip. No where did I blame all the spending on the dims. If you will look closely I agreed with Otter. I pointed out the dims wanting to say the entire problem was because of Iraq. Which is total BS. As has been pointed out more than once here and other places.

[otterinbham 0]

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

Gotta say, to try and lay the crazy ass spending of the last eight years at the Dems feet doesn't hold water. We had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president for most of that time. The GOP Congress sent spending bills that were way out of whack and Bush seemed to have lost his veto stamp every time one came through. He's the one that pushed hard for the Medicare Rx plan.

Just because the Dems went along with some of it doesn't mean you can equally assign blame this time.

Yup. I'm an equal opportunity blamer. That being said, anybody who doesn't believe that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security don't need a complete systemic overhaul are either deluded, on crack, or collecting under-the-table payments from somebody.

[RunInRed 16,494]

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

Gotta say, to try and lay the crazy ass spending of the last eight years at the Dems feet doesn't hold water. We had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president for most of that time. The GOP Congress sent spending bills that were way out of whack and Bush seemed to have lost his veto stamp every time one came through. He's the one that pushed hard for the Medicare Rx plan.

Just because the Dems went along with some of it doesn't mean you can equally assign blame this time.

Yup. I'm an equal opportunity blamer. That being said, anybody who doesn't believe that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security don't need a complete systemic overhaul are either deluded, on crack, or collecting under-the-table payments from somebody.

And which of the three candidates is most capable/most likely to enact this overhaul?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Both of you need to get a grip. No where did I blame all the spending on the dims.

You get a grip. I was reading this:

Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money...

...and was pointing out that even if every Dem in Congress had opposed the bills they still would have passed and Bush would have (and did) signed them, the blame falls primarily on the GOP. In fact, I hardly fault the Dems at all because they did not have control of the White House nor Congress nor any of the Congressional committees for 6 years, yet we spent money like horny sailors on shore leave. Assigning more than passing blame to the Dems is not looking at the problem realistically.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

Gotta say, to try and lay the crazy ass spending of the last eight years at the Dems feet doesn't hold water. We had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president for most of that time. The GOP Congress sent spending bills that were way out of whack and Bush seemed to have lost his veto stamp every time one came through. He's the one that pushed hard for the Medicare Rx plan.

Just because the Dems went along with some of it doesn't mean you can equally assign blame this time.

Yup. I'm an equal opportunity blamer. That being said, anybody who doesn't believe that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security don't need a complete systemic overhaul are either deluded, on crack, or collecting under-the-table payments from somebody.

And which of the three candidates is most capable/most likely to enact this overhaul?

Frankly, none of them. Neither of the Dems are willing to do anything to fix Social Security. They just want to fund more of the same measly 2% returns that no one can really live off of anyway in their retirement years.

[otterinbham 0]

Agreed. It just seems a little strange, or disingenuous, that the dems seem to want to paint the picture black ONLY because of Iraq. Both parties have been spending like there was not end to the money (but that seems to be normal for politicians.) The problem is that no one wants to take responsibility.

How many discussions have we had on this forum about earmarks? The dims always say that earmarks are good and earmarks are not the problem.

Gotta say, to try and lay the crazy ass spending of the last eight years at the Dems feet doesn't hold water. We had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president for most of that time. The GOP Congress sent spending bills that were way out of whack and Bush seemed to have lost his veto stamp every time one came through. He's the one that pushed hard for the Medicare Rx plan.

Just because the Dems went along with some of it doesn't mean you can equally assign blame this time.

Yup. I'm an equal opportunity blamer. That being said, anybody who doesn't believe that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security don't need a complete systemic overhaul are either deluded, on crack, or collecting under-the-table payments from somebody.

And which of the three candidates is most capable/most likely to enact this overhaul?

None of them. Which is the pity. To me, that is the single most important issue of the election. And nobody has the basic testicular fortitude to address it. If John McCain wanted to go down in history as a truly great president, he would say, "Hey, I'm in this for one term. And here are the politically unpopular, but completely necessary things we have to address as a nation..."

Then I would start telling the American people the absolute truth about the entitlements nightmare that's about to hit us.

Do you really honestly think that Obama or Clinton have the political will to do it? Not a chance. Both will be beholden to their entrenched party interests, which are firmly in the camp of preserving the status quo. Obama is not a maverick. He's just challenging the Clinton strangehold on the Democrats. However, he does not constitute any ideological break with the Democrats of old.