In case you’re still on the fence as to whether the Iraqi war–which between the efforts of ourselves and the insurgents has resulted in the deaths of sixty thousand Iraqis–is worth it, consider this tidbit from the book “The 3 Trillion Dollar War”:
The billions spent thus far by the United States in Bush’s war, if spent instead upon domestic concerns, would have been enough to fix Social Security for seventy-five years or provide health insurance for every child in the United States.
PAD
• 
That’s just the sort of thing the Terrorists WANT! Healthy and economically-secure Americans! As long as there’s even one healthy child or elderly person not starving in the streets, Osama biin Hussein has won!
The billions spent thus far by the United States in Bush’s war, if spent instead upon domestic concerns, would have been enough to fix Social Security for seventy-five years or provide health insurance for every child in the United States.
Yeah, but good luck in getting Congress to approve all the money to go those programs to actually HELP people for a change.
Coming to a country near you,
The Bush/McCain War!
See, it’s subversive books like that that make Bush’s job so hard. Which is exactly why he’s decided to eliminate funding for the Reading is Fundamental (RIF) program. Because stupid people are happy people.
And George knows that from personal experience, GeekBoy!
I don’t agree with the war but I also don’t thing the government should pay for our health insurance or retirement either. The money should be used for any of these and should have never been taken from the american people in the first place.
I thought the Iraq War was put on a “credit card” we owe to China and other countries? If thats the case we would never have taken out a line of credit for something as silly as health insurance or education. Sigh.
If I am correct about the whole credit card thing, I hope America has the good sense I had at 22 and change my name and address to avoid paying the bill.
I thought your problem was that the war was putting the country in bigger debt, and american G.I.’s were dying.
And
Would the money spent by the Democrates trying to win the nomination be used for better things?
“Would the money spent by the Democrates trying to win the nomination be used for better things?”
Why do single out the Democrats? Republicans also spend a lot on elections.
“I don’t agree with the war but I also don’t thing the government should pay for our health insurance or retirement either”
Why can’t we all just be sick and poor? And just STFU!
“Would the money spent by the Democrates trying to win the nomination be used for better things?”
Steve, that, for the most psrt, is privately raised money. It’s not coming from the federal coffers. The money for the war could have been used for much better, and in the long term, more beneficial projects.
Hydrogebn fuel cell research (bankrupt the Middle Eastern financiers of Al quaida et. al.)
Putting up wind turbines, tide turbines, solar farms.
Finance actual reform in basic public education.
Build an infrastructure that will last more than 35 years.
While I understand that many of these programs will upset the Oil and Coal, slash and burn crowd, well…TOO BAD!!!!
Social Security’s not broken (the myth that it is is one of the Republicans’ big triumphs this past decade or so), but dang, it would have been nice to shore up our infrastructure, help homeowners get out from under the housing bubble (which mechanism WAS broken, quite clearly), and get us all health insurance.
I have to wonder if this whole era will be remembered as the war that bought us into recession.
I have to wonder if this whole era will be remembered as the war that bought us into recession.
I have to wonder if this whole era will be remembered as the war that bought us into recession.
I have to wonder if this whole era will be remembered as the war that bought us into recession.
Geez, I wish that wouldn’t happen. I hit the post button and nothing seemed to happen. The end result is I get an internet stutter.
Silly Peter, how would fixing social security fill the coffers of Blackwater and Halliburton?
That’s funny. Those socialists in Taiwan and South Korea don’t agree with that.
I find it interesting how afraid some people (ahem MARK) are so against, you know, paying a little to help out our fellow citizens. I would gladly pay higher taxes a la France or the UK to have access to good healthcare, education and social services. In the long run, it makes for a better life for all.
Of course, if we all had better lives in the U.S., we’d have to, you know, stop shooting each other and stuff, and who wants that?
Ugh remind me to proofread before clicking “Post.” Curses!
Amen Peter.
But surely all that was worth it to get Bush off the golf course?
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/7515712)
It’s easy to say that the money could have done these things. The question that should be looked at is would it have done those things.
Looking at Washington DC prior to Bush’s war, I would have to say that it wouldn’t have.
Jerry, you are right. My list of “coulda woulda shoulda” is a result of being a Canuck who, as a result of his job, spends a lot of time in American truckstops.
The upshot is I hear a lot of denigration of countries that have (Oh the terror!!!!) socialized medecine, the metric system and gun laws. When I am told how Canada should spend more on it’s military, I always ask “At the expense of what?”, I am told that our medical system is to expensive, that private insurance can take care of it, and so on ad nauseum.
Things turn ugly when I ask how much the people making these comments pay for insurance.
But surely all that was worth it to get Bush off the golf course?
Wow. Just … wow.
Way to sacrifice, George.
TWL
Manny: The money for the war could have been used for much better, and in the long term, more beneficial projects. Hydrogebn fuel cell research (bankrupt the Middle Eastern financiers of Al quaida et. al.) Putting up wind turbines, tide turbines, solar farms.
Luigi Novi: Or throwing it all into a giant fireplace, since that’ll help the environment, the energy crisis and the economy about as much hydrogen fuel cells, turbines and solar farms.
A better bet would hybridization, electrical, and nuclear.
Elayne Riggs: “Social Security’s not broken”
My best friend works for Social Security, and he would disagree heavily with you on that one.
Interesting point raised by commenter above. If, rather than going to war or fixing social security/paying for health insurance, if we’d just.. you know.. not collected those taxes in the first place, Americans could have spent it on health insurance, retirement, education flying cars, drugs or whatever they hëll they wanted. Which sounds suspiciously like freedom to me. AND capitalism.
Freedom/capitalism and social programs are not mutually exclusive. A strong argument can be made that without social programs in place, capitalism quickly falls apart. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and freedom won’t mean a whole lot if 90% of the population is sick, dying, unemployed, and uneducated. I’m not advocating pure Socialism here, but in a thriving society, those with power and money have a social responsibility to maintain the health of the nation as a whole. And that often means giving a helping hand to those in need.
The bottom line is that most people aren’t responsible with money. So just not taxing them at all isn’t a viable solution. Left to their own devices, the general populace wouldn’t choose to “chip in” to build schools or hospitals, or adequately man police stations and firehouses. And most wouldn’t be far-sighted enough to save for their retirement. It’s sad, but true. And the actions of those people impacts all of us if/when they become homeless or start spreading diseases. So social institutions like Social Security play a valuable role. As could national health care, if we could make it work.
Careful, BillZilla… You’ll start to sound like a Fair Tax proponent!
“If, rather than going to war or fixing social security/paying for health insurance, if we’d just.. you know.. not collected those taxes in the first place”
We didn’t collect those taxes. The war was financed on debt.
Social Security collects a surplus every year.
If that money had been invested over the years, Social Security would not be “in trouble”, whatever that really means. Instead, the surplus has been spent elsewhere.
Aren’t any of you nice people and you dillweeds embarrassed that the United States is ranked 37th in health care? Even Cuba is ranked higher. Canada’s health care is on a par with ours, yet costs WAY less than ours. In addition, when a Canadian gets sick, he doesn’t have to reach for his wallet to help make a decision on whether or not to go to the doctor—he just calls and makes an appointment. (And there will be those who will say that the waiting times in Canada are twice what they are here. That may have been true at one time, but not so now. Wait times are about the same now.)
GeekBoy,
I read about an interesting study a few weeks ago regarding charity. The ones who give the most? Religious Conservatives. They generally practice what they preach about giving. Secular Liberals give less. Least of all though are the Secular Conservatives.
Interesting dynamic.
“Aren’t any of you nice people and you dillweeds embarrassed that the United States is ranked 37th in health care? Even Cuba is ranked higher.”
I am embarassed by that. I asked my brother-in-law the doctor about that. I figured it had to be just propaganda on Cuba’s part. Nope. As far as he can tell, it’s true.
Ah, the irony of it all…
We live in a country where our government tells us they are desperately concerned about our security and the security of our nation’s borders but somehow thousands are able to make it into the country each year to work below the minimum wage.
A country where the government will bail out the large corporation but sit idle while homeowners are dispossessed.
A country that spends billions to rebuild the infrastructure of a nation sitting atop vast oil wealth while our bridges and roads crumble around us.
A nation based supposedly on democratic principles that has somehow managed to allow the members of two families to hold the highest office in the land for the last two decades.
Excuse me while I go check and see if the planet is square because it’s sure beginning to sound a lot like Bizarro world.
“A nation based supposedly on democratic principles that has somehow managed to allow the members of two families to hold the highest office in the land for the last two decades.”
That’s a pretty misleading statement. The only reoccurring name is Bush. That’s the only family that has had “members” hold said office.
Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence.
“Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence.”
I am right. Because last I checked, running for President is not synonymous with being President. Only one Clinton has held the office of President. To claim otherwise is misleading.
“Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence.”
I am right. Because last I checked, running for President is not synonymous with being President. Only one Clinton has held the office of President. To claim otherwise is misleading.
“Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence.”
I am right. Because last I checked, running for President is not synonymous with being President. Only one Clinton has held the office of President. To claim otherwise is misleading.
Browser/internet issues = multipost
“Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence.”
Running for office is not the same as holding the office and we have not had “members of two families to hold the highest office in the land for the last two decades.”
And at the rate that Hillary is burning bridges in her own party; we won’t have that happen.
Actually, Jerry, we will:
1989-1993: President George H. W. Bush
1993-2001: President William J. Clinton
2001-2009: President George W. Bush
4+8+8=20, 20=2 decades.
Toss in George H. W. Bush’s 8 years as Reagan’s veep, and it’s even longer.
But back to the main point…
Th Constitution talks about “provide for the common defense,” and specifically authorizes a military and the power to declare and wage war. On the other hand, it says “promote the general welfare” — NOT offer, but encourage — and does not mention things like the Departments of Education or Health and Human Services.
Some things simply should not be handled by the federal government. It simply does them horribly. I think providing health insurance and funding retirement (along with micromanaging education) are among them.
J.
“Some things simply should not be handled by the federal government. It simply does them horribly. I think providing health insurance and funding retirement (along with micromanaging education) are among them.”
Well then you’re wrong. You’re not wrong because it’s my opinion, you’re wrong because many federal governments in many countries do it and get great results. We could debate the philosophy of it all day, but if federal governments all over the world are doing something well, then it is incorrect to say that it is impossible for a federal government to do that thing well.
By the way, I don’t really care what the Constitution has to say on the matter. The Constitution was written with the capability of being amended for a reason. The Founding Fathers would laugh at people for saying that the validity of a practice should be judged by the precise wording of a document that was specifically created to be updated. Then they’d ask what Penicillin is and how soon Ben Franklin could get some.
Posted by Alan Coil at May 14, 2008 07:18 PM
(And there will be those who will say that the waiting times in Canada are twice what they are here. That may have been true at one time, but not so now. Wait times are about the same now.)
For the most part, you’ve got that right. The other thing you WILL NOT see up here are billboards advertising money back guarantees for excessive wait times in ERs.
I get the impression that, with the privitized corporate nature of health care in the US, actual health care takes a back seat to profits.
Jay Tea,
Your right in your math, but that’s not the point he was making. It read like he had it phrased as if we had just had two members from each family and were already in the Hillary term.
@Jay Tea
Why not say members of three families since 1981 and count Reagan? Or members of four families since 1977 and count Carter?
Only one family has had multiple members as President in the last two decades. That’s the Bush family. There is nothing suspect (in regards to the democratic process) of ONE family member serving two terms of office, and lumping the Clinton family in with the two generations of the Bush family is misleading, at best. The way it was presented in the follow up comment, confirming that Hillary was part of the initial equation despite the fact that she has not even won the nomination at this stage, is simply dishonest.
Regardless, why should someone care whether or not someone has had a brother or a son or a cousin in office before hand? What matters most is whether or not the person is the best choice for the job. Voting based on family, either for or against, is foolish.
Posted by Alan Coil at May 14, 2008 07:18 PM
(And there will be those who will say that the waiting times in Canada are twice what they are here. That may have been true at one time, but not so now. Wait times are about the same now.)
Where is this info coming from? Your right the wait times will not be twice what they are here it will be 4 or 5 times worse.
We do not have a LACK of healthcare or affortable healthcare problem, its more a problem in how that healthcare is handled or managed.
When you have a system that rewards patients who call 911 and actually have the ambulance take them to an ER (because heaven forbid the Paramedics tell the person they dont need an ambulance for fear of losing their jobs) with quicker service because they came in the back door. All for a tummy ache, no šhìŧ folks, tummy aches. Every single day this happens, over and over. People abusing the healthcare system because they know they can get away with it.
Oh and lets not forget that these fine upstanding folks dont have insurance, do they worry about how they will pay? No…They know all they have to do is show up and they will get their needs met at the cost of your health insurance premiums going through the roof, to make up the difference.
When you have clinics and urgent cares doing absolutly everything in their power to discourage patients from coming to them. Actually talking patients into chest pain so they can tell them “oh no you need to go to the ER” and guess what? its a tummy ache.
When you have specialty doctors telling patients who call them for help to “just go to the ER and get a MRI” you dont just get a MRI you have to have the whole work up. All that dr. had to do was schedule a MRI at the hospital but for some reason the lazy F#@% cannot find the time to do that.
We have all the healthcare you could want and need or think you need just for the asking. Nobody is turned away.
You can get turned away at the clinic
Your Internal Medicine Dr. can turn you away.
The Urgent care can wave you away or turf you to us.
I have yet to hear what Hillary or borack plan to do about this other than throw more money at it.
Where will this money come from?
Guess what? Your HMO just found another reason to jack up your premium.
@Pat Nolan: “We do not have a LACK of healthcare or affortable healthcare problem, its more a problem in how that healthcare is handled or managed.”
That’s false. Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.
@Pat Nolan: “Oh and lets not forget that these fine upstanding folks dont have insurance, do they worry about how they will pay? No…They know all they have to do is show up and they will get their needs met at the cost of your health insurance premiums going through the roof, to make up the difference.”
Also false. The ER cannot satisfy all of your medical needs. An ER does not administer chemo or radiation therapy for cancer, nor can it provide a liver transplant.
@Pat Nolan: “When you have clinics and urgent cares doing absolutly everything in their power to discourage patients from coming to them.”
Can you cite statistics, or is this merely anecdotal? If it’s the latter, then it’s not worth discussing because there’s no basis for measuring it other than one’s biases and imagination.
@Pat Nolan: “We have all the healthcare you could want and need or think you need just for the asking. Nobody is turned away.”
Again, false. No one is turned away from the *ER*. On the other hand, there are many documented instances of people who are unable to obtain necessary medical procedures because they lack health insurance, or because their insurance company against all logic denied the claim, or because they were dropped from their insurance as a result of needing to utilize the services for which they’ve been paying premiums over the years. Some of these people die as a result.
Sorry to have offended you, Pat Nolan, but the reports that the wait times are relatively equal is not something I made up. It’s been reported several times over the last 2-3 years.
And the Canadians get better health care than we do. And it’s cheaper in the long run. And Canadians are generally better looking than US citizens.
Okay, that last one was not true, but I’m just trying to lighten the mood a bit.