House Passes Biggest Boondoggle in History...

[eno]

apat:

I don't think presidents "direct" the economy, but they can have an effect. If anyone remembers things honestly, after 9/11/01, it felt like the world might be ending... no planes in the sky, big down-turn in the economy, fear of bio-terrorism (remember anthrax letters?) and nuclear dirty-bombs; it felt a lot more ominous than now. Bush's tax cuts were the medicine/stimulus that got the economy roaring back.

On the other hand, Bush and the Republicans (from 00-06) were not the model of fiscal restraint, and the Democrats have never been the model of fiscal restraint; the only time I can remember Democrats complaining about deficit spending is when it could be pinned on Republicans, or when it is used as an argument against tax cuts. The other way one can balance a budget is by reducing gov. spending, but Democrats have their own definition of "spending cuts" and that is: even a mere reduction in the rate of increased spending equals a spending cut, and they won't have that!

The first stimulus package late last year (under Bush) was a shot in the dark, with a very expensive bullet; it does not appear to have worked. Now, spending three times as much on mostly "pork" seems like more folly, but maybe President Obama and the Democratic Congress understand history better than I thought:

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." - Alexis de Tocqueville

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." - Alexis de Tocqueville

"Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect!" - Harry Hopkins, F.D.R. adviser

[rbain]

After the last eight years, it takes more than a little gall for Republicans to talk about fiscal restraint. The Iraq war will end up costing us more than $3 Trillion. We can spend that improving Iraq, but a third of that is too much to spend HERE? Do you think that THAT $3Trillion has had NO impact on our economy? Give me a break. Look in the mirror for the faults you find in others.

As for the silence in this debate, when the game is over, one team leaves the field, and the other stands around screaming for a rematch and complaining about the refs and the condition of the field.

Rob

[apatriot]

rbain:  "The Iraq war will end up costing us more than $3 Trillion." 

rbain, can you tell me where you are getting this figure from?  Something to substantiate 3 Trillion?  Because your state the war will "end up" costing us .... do we know exactly when it is to end? and isn't "the end" a matter that is in the hands of Obama?

In just a reading of Obam's quotes in this article, it looks to me that military will be shifted to other areas:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080715/pl_politico/11754

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) vowed to quickly end the war in Iraq and shift the focus of the war on terror to Afghanistan and Pakistan, declaring in an address today that the "single-minded and open-ended focus" on Iraq "distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize."

"This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century," Obama said. "By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe."

Obama delivered the address on Iraq at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, ahead of a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan later this month.

In the remarks, Obama vowed to take "the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan": "In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was.

"We've been distracted from our most pressing threats, and we've pushed the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military—while neglected the other elements of American power," he said. "And we've alienated ourselves from the world instead of strengthening our alliances."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will address what his campaign calls "his plans for winning the war in Afghanistan" at the top of a town hall he's holding in Albuquerque, N.M..

In remarks released by his campaign, McCain takes a tough shot at his rival for the presidency: "Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."


In an opinion article in yesterday's New York Times, Obama said he would put two more combat brigades – roughly 7,000 troops – in Afghanistan.

Obama announced "five goals essential to making America safer":

1. Ending the war in Iraq responsibly;

2. Finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban;

3. Securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations;

4. Achieving true energy security;

5. Rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Here are excerpts from the address, as released by the campaign:

"Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq – what has been missing since before the war began – is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

 

"I am running for president of the United States to lead this country in a new direction -to seize this moment's promise. Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America – once again – to lead.

"As president, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy – one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

***

"In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

"Senator McCain said – just months ago – that 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

***

"Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam."

END

[rbain]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

A choice excerpt about the "leaders" who sold us this war:

Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.

So, your counter to the obscene expense of IRAQ is that we're not done in Afghanistan yet? We weren't done in Afghanistan when we went INTO Iraq, and the $3trillion has only gotten us further behind in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda actually  is.

[n01_important]

Many of the Iraq war figures don't include is the future cost for the health care of veterans.  Some have lost limbs and many are emotional traumatized.  I've seen estimates of $500M, but that tells it will probably cost $1-2T before all that is said and done.

What many Americans don't ask either because they are too busy watch crap on TV, don't (try to) understand the failures of America's oligarchic news media, or are incapable of critical thinking is "why am I not being told the whole story?".  Maybe politicians don't think we can handle the truth?  Maybe they think if they told us the truth, we wouldn't agree to their plans?  But I digress...

The US government sets standards of clarity & disclosure for individuals, corporations and other institutions.  Then proceeds to not follow those standards.  So when it releases the "cost" of the war, it chooses to follow the cash basis and not mention the known future costs.  If a corporation did that, investors could sue the corporation and probably win.

[apatriot]

Washington Post states according to their math.

Not sure Wikipedia has the credibility necessary, but probably no more or less than Washington Post.  Wikipedia does offer up its sources for calculation and comes up with a figure of $550B as of August 2008.  Where the difference in calculation to arrive at two different totals, and totals that are not even close $3Trill vs. $550B, is a mystery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

rbain, we shall find out soon enough what Obama is going to do about terror.  Get your calculator out and ready.  So, would you like to take a shot and explain how this pork barrel spending is warranted at this point in time?

[OakParkSpartan]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Price_of_Iraq_war_now_outpaces_0318.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/25/iraq-war-cost/

[eno]

After the last eight years, it takes more than a little gall for Republicans to talk about fiscal restraint. The Iraq war will end up costing us more than $3 Trillion. We can spend that improving Iraq, but a third of that is too much to spend HERE? Do you think that THAT $3Trillion has had NO impact on our economy? Give me a break. Look in the mirror for the faults you find in others.

As for the silence in this debate, when the game is over, one team leaves the field, and the other stands around screaming for a rematch and complaining about the refs and the condition of the field.

Rob

Rob:

As I said (and have said repeatedly): Bush was not a fiscally conservative president and neither was the Republican Congress from 2001 to 2007; if I look in the mirror I won't see either Bush or Obama, just me... and I have been consistent!

Regarding the Iraq War, IMO that was an appropriate, constitutionally permissible expenditure of $$, whether you or I agree with that war or not; don't forget that many Democrats (including our current Sec. of State) backed the resolution to go to war in Congress, and then bailed (except for Hillary, to a degree) for purely selfish, political purposes to curry favor with the Kos/moveon.org vote.

Nobody is standing around (a la Gore in 2000) screaming for a rematch or complaining to refs about the condition on the field! In fact, there is a respectful, yet principled approach to addressing President Obama's policies on the part of Republicans (and some Democrats) who oppose this latest "stimulus" bill. I am against this bill, as I was against the last bill... not because of who is president (Obama now, Bush then) but because it will do nothing to turn things around, but do everything to weaken the private sector & strengthen the central government.

eno

[rbain]

After the last eight years, it takes more than a little gall for Republicans to talk about fiscal restraint. The Iraq war will end up costing us more than $3 Trillion. We can spend that improving Iraq, but a third of that is too much to spend HERE? Do you think that THAT $3Trillion has had NO impact on our economy? Give me a break. Look in the mirror for the faults you find in others.

As for the silence in this debate, when the game is over, one team leaves the field, and the other stands around screaming for a rematch and complaining about the refs and the condition of the field.

Rob

Rob:

As I said (and have said repeatedly): Bush was not a fiscally conservative president and neither was the Republican Congress from 2001 to 2007; if I look in the mirror I won't see either Bush or Obama, just me... and I have been consistent!

Regarding the Iraq War, IMO that was an appropriate, constitutionally permissible expenditure of $$, whether you or I agree with that war or not; don't forget that many Democrats (including our current Sec. of State) backed the resolution to go to war in Congress, and then bailed (except for Hillary, to a degree) for purely selfish, political purposes to curry favor with the Kos/moveon.org vote.

Nobody is standing around (a la Gore in 2000) screaming for a rematch or complaining to refs about the condition on the field! In fact, there is a respectful, yet principled approach to addressing President Obama's policies on the part of Republicans (and some Democrats) who oppose this latest "stimulus" bill. I am against this bill, as I was against the last bill... not because of who is president (Obama now, Bush then) but because it will do nothing to turn things around, but do everything to weaken the private sector & strengthen the central government.

eno

Perhaps then you could point out a Republican president who WAS a fiscal conservative? If you're honest, you'll have to go back to Calvin Coolidge. You keep buying the line from Republicans that they're for fiscal responsibility and small government, and they ALWAYS deliver the opposite. They also tend to deliver bubble economies (followed by crashes) and enormous corporate corruption scandals.

You say "stay out of the way of business". Great. So the guys running the economy will be the same guys who give themselves $18 billion in bonuses AFTER leading their companies into bankruptcy? THOSE are the guys who should remain unfettered from government interference? You think the guys who pay themselves billions as reward for laying of hundreds of thousands of Americans are the ones with our best interests at heart?

[apatriot]

rbain, are you saying Democrats are devoid of having any big business friends?

[watcher]

http://www.youtube.com/v/oxuqmPyKqcs&hl=en&fs=1.

Shall we discuss boondoggles?

In addition to the $700 bailout from last year, the Fed has spent/lent another $1.3 TRILLION with
ZERO oversight. ZERO disclosure. ZERO accountability.

How can one NOT say the purpose of this little exercise was wholesale highway robbery?

Would you like answers to the questions asked by this Freshman Congresscritter?

[eno]

Rob:

You're inferring things I didn't say or even suggest, such as:

(1) "...You keep buying the line from Republicans that they're for fiscal responsibility and small government.."

I didn't say that. The gist of what I was saying was the opposite: Republicans and Bush have been fiscally irresponsible.

(2) : "You say 'stay out of the way of business.' "

I didn't say that, either.

In fact, I agree with you when you suggest: "...great. So the guys running the economy will be the same guys who give themselves $18 billion in bonuses AFTER leading their companies into bankruptcy?..." If a business takes a hand-out from the government, I agree with you that they have to use the money as Uncle Sam says; but, if you're like "Ford" (didn't take a hand-out) the government has NO bloody business in your affairs, what kind of bonus is paid, nor how much; it's not the government's money!! As far as bankruptcy, the businesses to which you refer are not availing themselves of that very constitutional avenue; instead, they are going to bed with Uncle Sam on an extra-constitutional "bail-out" date, and, as the old saying goes, you gotta dance with the one that brung you!

As far as pointing out Republican presidents who are fiscally conservative, if you define a "fiscally conservative president" by simply identifying which presidents presided over deficits as opposed to surpluses, you're being simplistic! I'd want to know what events (economic & political, geo-political) contributed to the expenditures and revenues; I'd also want to know what the position of the Congress was, as this is not (yet) a dictatorship, and Congress STILL holds the power of the purse, and has a BIG say in which direction government goes. I would support a fiscal conservative (of any party) who favors cutting tax rates even if Congress refuses to cut spending!!! Congress never, ever cuts spending. Budgets are almost always balanced by a rise in revenue (which has often been a by-product of tax cuts); one exception might be the combination of the post Reagan/Bush I "peace dividend" (occasioned by the end of the Cold War) combined with Clinton's unwise reduction in defense spending, but brilliant triangulation which caused him  to drastically reduce dependence and expenditures on "Welfare" with the assistance of a pretty conservative Republican Congress.

 

[apatriot]

Watcher ... good post.  I like that Grayson.

[Ted]

Watcher ... good post.  I like that Grayson. 

  +1

[apatriot]

I hope it's noticed that I said I like a Democrat.

[eno]

http://www.youtube.com/v/oxuqmPyKqcs&hl=en&fs=1.

Shall we discuss boondoggles?

In addition to the $700 bailout from last year, the Fed has spent/lent another $1.3 TRILLION with
ZERO oversight. ZERO disclosure. ZERO accountability.

How can one NOT say the purpose of this little exercise was wholesale highway robbery?

Would you like answers to the questions asked by this Freshman Congresscritter?

Beware of wolves, Graysons (and hucksters) in sheep's clothing!

watcher is absolutely wrong when he says there is "...ZERO oversight. ZERO disclosure. ZERO accountability." Just listen to minute 3:05 and forward of the youtube piece, where the reporter correctly states that: "...three separate oversight panels have been set up to monitor the Treasury's T.A.R.P. program, but the only body with any authority over the Fed's cash flow is Congress.

For God's sake, if Congress can't oversee the Fed, then we're in trouble!

Incidentally, Freshman Rep. Grayson voted FOR the almost $-Trillion Obama "pork-package" while posing as a watch-dog when  questioning the Fed! I'm waiting to see if the brave representative, Mr. Grayson sticks his neck out to question the Obama administration with the same zeal as he questioned the Fed. I'm waiting, but not holding my breath.

..... If this Grayson guy were serious, he and his colleagues in the Democratic majority could completely reign in (and even abolish) the Fed with the stroke of a pen, but it's just....more smoke and mirrors....

-1

eno

P.S. (IMO) watcher is absolutely correct about one thing: "...the purpose of this little exercise [whether it be the Fed's (i.e Congress') secret loans  or the Executive: Bush/Bama's "stimulus"] [is] wholesale highway robbery!" The booty is not merely lost $$$, but lost liberty as well.

[apatriot]

eno, what would I do without you? go astray no doubt ... like I did in my 20's when I heard a good line   Time will tell re: Grayson.

[Paul Fuentes]

http://www.youtube.com/v/oxuqmPyKqcs&hl=en&fs=1.

Shall we discuss boondoggles?

In addition to the $700 bailout from last year, the Fed has spent/lent another $1.3 TRILLION with
ZERO oversight. ZERO disclosure. ZERO accountability.

How can one NOT say the purpose of this little exercise was wholesale highway robbery?

Would you like answers to the questions asked by this Freshman Congresscritter?

You are obviously an idiot.

The Executive Branch (i.e. Bush) cannot spend.

It can only implement legislation proposed and passed by Congress and the Senate (see Pelosi and Reid).

Any oversight has to be drafted into the bill (once again, see Pelosi and Reid).

The Bailout was drafted by a DEM controlled House and Senate (yes, they were the ones who put in money for arrow companies, a railroad no one will use in California, and mental health).

Bush was an idiot for not vetoing it.  But he did not draft it.

Do all of us a favor.  Know WTF your talking about.

Nuff Said

[watcher]

Beware of wolves, Graysons (and hucksters) in sheep's clothing!

watcher is absolutely wrong when he says there is "...ZERO oversight. ZERO disclosure. ZERO accountability." Just listen to minute 3:05 and forward of the youtube piece, where the reporter correctly states that: "...three separate oversight panels have been set up to monitor the Treasury's T.A.R.P. program, but the only body with any authority over the Fed's cash flow is Congress.

For God's sake, if Congress can't oversee the Fed, then we're in trouble!

Incidentally, Freshman Rep. Grayson voted FOR the almost $-Trillion Obama "pork-package" while posing as a watch-dog when  questioning the Fed! I'm waiting to see if the brave representative, Mr. Grayson sticks his neck out to question the Obama administration with the same zeal as he questioned the Fed. I'm waiting, but not holding my breath.

..... If this Grayson guy were serious, he and his colleagues in the Democratic majority could completely reign in (and even abolish) the Fed with the stroke of a pen, but it's just....more smoke and mirrors....

-1

eno

P.S. (IMO) watcher is absolutely correct about one thing: "...the purpose of this little exercise [whether it be the Fed's (i.e Congress') secret loans  or the Executive: Bush/Bama's "stimulus"] [is] wholesale highway robbery!" The booty is not merely lost $$$, but lost liberty as well.

If you define oversight as a deputy chairman appearing before a committee and NOT answering direct questions then sure there is is oversight.
Grayson has drawn attention to the non-answers.

But rather that debate all that, let's skip on down to our area of apparent agreement.

We agree a robbery has/is taking place? By whom, from whom?

I think if we can agree on that it will be a giant leap forward.

[Ted]

http://www.youtube.com/v/oxuqmPyKqcs&hl=en&fs=1.

  I still say +1.  What Grayson said in that video is absolutely correct.

  If the Fed is going to "lend" bailout money to keep financial institutions afloat, then there should be a public record of what institutions received money and how much money they received.

  Why is the Fed chief trying to keep that information private?

  That information (how much bailout money the Fed lent and to whom it was lent) ought to be public information.  The tax payers have a right to know.

  Ted