Smells like Halliburton!

Unbelievable! While I doubt W had anything to do with this personally, it does smell of a runaway bureaucracy. These things happen quite often in the government, but the inspector general rarely issues negative reports as in this instance. If they do, then there's usually something fishy going on.

Sometimes they say it best themselves: "A heck of a job!"

And years down the road we'll be paying for it, and our children will be paying for it, and our grandchildren will be paying for it, and our great-grandchildren....

Indeed. Kind of like all those misguided social programs that our great-grandparents started paying for in the 1930s, and which their progeny continue to prop up today. If you're going to criticize, investigate and prosecute one, do the same for all.

"Safety net?" Sorry, for too many they're a hammock. frown

Gmg, this is slightly different. Back then they weren't hiding the costs, as they were totally feasible at the current population structure. How could they have foreseen the population boom after WWII and the subsequent strain on resources? Or how could they have seen the economics of the 80s which opened the door for the ever widening gap between rich and poor?

Hiding the costs from our own Congress in a time that our national deficit gets ever bigger is a major issue that should be dealt with accordingly. Unfortunately, the spend and spend Congress will probably just let this one go right on by like nothing happened.

This got me to thinking. I would love to hear what some of the much bigger and better ( than me) liberal thinkers here have to say about this. Fan? Cpt-Doom? Anyone else I may have overlooked??

[ August 01, 2006, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

I don't claim to be a liberal (cf. libertarian), but I agree with the frustration the author directs towards the radical left of the Democratic Party. They just DON'T "get first things first," as FDR put it, because they, IMHO, lack a sense of perspective. We see the same thing on the G&L radical left in the "marriage at all costs" crowd. To me, these unrealistic views stem from an unrealistic view of the world, one that essentially is egocentric and immature in the sense that it never learned to compromise.* From a purely selfish political perspective, that's fine with me if the Demos want to keep shooting themselves in the foot. But from another perspective I have, one at least as important, and often more important than my partisan one, their intransigence is not good for the country and therefore something I could never support, whatever banner it rallied under.
_____
*Nor do I deny for a minute that much of the same thing exists among the religious right, although there the immaturity and refusal to compromise expresses itself in dogmatic fundamentalism.

Whoever is saying to stay the course in Iraq, or that things are going well, obviously hasn't seen or heard of this headline today.
Good Lord, even Tucker Carlson yesterday, yes Tucker Carlson, applauded the leading Dems. in the House and Senate yesterday for all uniting( for once) and sending a letter to Shrub about the quagmire that has become Iraq. Now thats saying something for Tucker.

Which programs are those, gmginsfo? More importantly, which would you end to ensure that people don't have that "hammock"? Would you wipe out Social Security, so that our senior citizens can enjoy starvation and heatless winters as their reward for old age? Maybe you'd like to kill its 60's cousin, Medicare, which ensures that those who would never be able to get health insurance don't have to forgo medical care?

Perhaps you'd wipe out the bank deposit insurance program that has given us one of the most secure capital markets in the world? How about OSHA, which ensures that none of us has to worry about the safety of our workplaces?

It is one thing to criticize the operations of such programs, but to criticize their very existence is selfish and short-sighted. One of the key things I learned in my graduate Econ work is the value of long-term stability to a well-functioning economy. These programs by, for instance, ensuring a solid consumer base among retired people, are one way for our economy to flourish with less of the volatility that is inherent in a market system. Take a look at the economic and social upheavals of the 19th century if you want to see the truly frightening ways an unfettered market can reak havoc on a society.

As for the costs of the Iraq War, unlike the Marshall plan for the recovery of the European and Japanese economies, the costs of this "reconstruction" are unlikely to provide net benefits to the US economy. By not waging the war (as illegal and unnecessary as it was) in the right manner, we have likely destroyed any hope that Iraq, even if it survives, will become part of the global linked economy that we share with the rest of the developed world.

I can make my own arguments without your "help," CPT, unless you'd like to have this debate with yourself - which you just might if you allow it to linger any longer before you finally get up the gumption to reply.

I never said I'd "end" any programs, and I wouldn't eliminate SS - I'd amend it to allow folks like me who'd rather manage their own money the option to do so. Nor would I eliminate Medicare, I'd just police it and SS much more stringently than either is now so they're not abused. As for FDIC and OHSA - boy, you've built enough straw men here to host a hayride! But your wagon's a little rickety, especially since you recognize the difference between ending and criticizing the operations of certain programs.

We can spin round and round as we've been doing with the multiple screw-ups with Iraq, we can hear deflection after deflection (thank you gmginsfo and mib) but the facts are before us: Our country is in far worse shape than before Bush took office. We've been screwed repeatedly in a variety of places...need I list them? Phony reasons to go to war? Tax cuts for the rich? The religious right's invasion into our government and our civil rights. Need I list more? How about lies and more lies from this adminstration? How about a complete lack of responsibility for its attempted bulldozing of our civil rights? How about its need for absolute power? How about the incredible profits Halliburton has made off this whole presidency?
We're not safer, we're not stronger, we're not more respected in the world. We're part of the problem and until this adminstration loses its arrogance and dogmatic beliefs, nothing's going to change. The Emperor has no clothes on but his minions continue to claim otherwise. And while I expect the typical spitting up of lies and deflections from certain other posters, it doesn't change the facts that are before us. We're deep in the muck - smarter, more evolved brains are needed and they're not in the White House.

[ August 02, 2006, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

Time to rinse off those gloves, Bry; just because someone disagrees with your angry worldview doesn't make them a "liar" or a "deflector." In fact, give your whole "deflection" line a rest; it wasn't yours to begin with and it serves you as poorly as it does those who first seized upon it. Matching your arguments with opposing ones and then expanding the debate beyond your name-calling and cavilling isn't deflecting, avoiding or any of your other ill-chosen gerunds. It's called debating and your latest meltdown proves you just can't handle it, despite your prior, inconsistent assertions to the contrary.

Bryan, I think you've given an great summation of our unfortunate situation.

Thanks, I stick to it. "I'm melting, I'm melting..."

As usual, immediately there's avoidance of the reality of what's before us. And I think I'm the only one who's getting called any names but hey that's a great way to deflect from the lies the adminstration continue to tell...In fact, if you analyze gmginsfo's previous posting, you'll see all the methods of deflection and attack commonly used by the folks in charge at the white house.

Debate this!

[ August 03, 2006, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

Somebody needs to fire off a memo post haste to Speaker Dennis Hastert who said less than a month ago that the Iraq war was "going well."

oh really????

I don't want to get into a flame war, but just to be clear - I am on the road for my job between 2 - 5 days/week, and it is sometimes hard to visit my old friends at Outsports.

As for the Iraq costs, the difference between those and the allegedly inefficient social programs you seem to be criticizing is that the Iraq war was a totally needless and unnecessary cost/burden for our economy to bear. It has provided no increase in stability or safety, created no new trading or economic opportunities and appears more and more unlikely to even produce a truly friendly government for the United States.

Couple that with the \"cut taxes and still spend wildly\" GOP Congresses of the past 6 years and it is pretty clear how our national budget moved from surplus to huge deficits in just a few years. The complete abandonment of the \"pay as you go\" strategy of the 1990s, which did much to help produce the surplus and rein in government spending (at least its growth) shows just how devoted the \"conservative\" principles the current GOP leadership is - which is barely, if at all.

That may be true on this board, but I just finished the latest book by John Dean "Conservatives Without Conscience," and he makes a very good argument that the current leadership of the GOP, including Cheney and his cronies, are part of an authoritarian movement that sacrfices all principles and ideals for the "win at all costs" attitude that has gripped right-wing politics for years.

Cap'n, the only disagreement I have with your last post is Dean's definition and (mis)characterization of "authoritarian," and that the Iraq war wasn't necessary. I believe it was absolutely necessary to bring down SH, just as it may well be necessary to bring down his Iranian counterpart. Others may disagree, but that's my informed, considered opinion - and that of a veteran who knows firsthand the disruption, despair, and death that war can bring.

Hey your opinion, but mine is that the Iraq mess, will go down as the biggest. costliest foreign policy blunder the United States has ever made. Period.

Have its costs have exceeded Vietnam's yet? I know they haven't in terms of deaths, and doubt if they have in terms of dollars, adjusted for the times.

I wonder if the media will notice when the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq (2586 to date) surpasses the death toll from the 9/11 attacks (2976).

As supporters for Hezbollah flood the streets in Baghdad, it must be clear to some in the Bush administration that we've created our terrorists.

In re-reading the actual title of this thread, I don't think the costs in terms of our soldiers' lives or our prestige in the world are all that well hidden at all.