Thursday, April 03, 2008
The Government Checkbook
I know myself that I have very finite resources in my checking account, usually people have bigger savings accounts than their checking accounts but even combining the two finitude is the fiscal reality here. I can't write a check for a new speedboat if I don't have the money, in the days of yore you'd wind up in debtor's prison. These everyday rules for the rest of us don't seem to apply to the federal government though and maybe that should be the yardstick whereby we choose our next President. So right off the bat it can't be Obama or Hill and Mac we are reminded time and again ain't a true dyed-in-the-wool conservative so maybe the Constitutional Party is where it's at. The Federal Reserve, our nation's central banking system, can just print more money in a pinch but if we did that, had a printing press in our basement we'd be arrested for counterfeiting. The richest person in the world isn't Vladimir Putin or Adnan Kashogi, it's the U.S. Government, or at least they act that way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Newshour with Jim Lehrer recently did a report on the true monetary cost of the Iraq War. Two groups of scholars came up with different figures and analyses, the second group's figures were far lower and their analysis seem fairer and less biased but either way we're talking an astronomical amount, billions and billions of dollars. This is not to take a pro or anti-war side in all this but overall costs are a reality. This is why I say the Government Checkbook appears to be limitless.
ReplyDelete...which is why, as important as the war is you wouldn't want it dragging on for another 20 or so years and make no mistake, ObamaHill will drive the point home since Mac has seemed to tie himself to this position. The Democrats, of all people, will make the case for fiscal responsibility and restraint. Even if I were more pro-the-war than I've been in the past the #'s would still blow me away.
ReplyDeleteZ-man, to top it all off, I see this report yesterday about soaring Iraqi oil profits.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gas_war_iraq_1
Now, weren't these the same Iraqi Oil profits that were to pay for this war??? I'll be waiting for my kickback.....
The problem isn't the war as much as it is the government's checkbook paying for all sorts of entitlements, being in the business of things they have no business being involved in. The war, now see they are suppose to defend our country as defined in the Constitution, now one can argue the validity of the war in Iraq as being something that was needed to defend our country or not, but in my mind that is more legitimate than grants to fund stupid artists or studies about cows passing gas.
ReplyDeleteAnd Soapie, I would think anything involved in rebuilding Iraq should absolutely be paid for by Iraq.
But you know Obama is going to go after the war and McCain this way, all that money could have been used to build schools, hospitals etc., in other words the typical Democratic response. I agree with you Beth that a war to defend your country is more important than suckling at the national teat but Bush just recently intimated going after Iran and many neocons in general like Norman Podhoretz believe that maybe our preemptive war against Saddam was and should be only the beginning, problem being even if they're right (and I'd like to help parts of Africa too while we're at it) you can't get away from the money factor. Even if theoretically I thought 5 more wars against various countries was morally just you just can't pay for it all, that is if you're a true fiscal conservative. We're in Iraq, we should win it, but let's keep it there.
ReplyDeleteDuring the whole Bear Stearns meltdown and the ensuing discussion on the Newshour one economist blithely said the Fed can print more money anytime it chooses, well party on guys! but as I've already said Joe Shmo can't do that. The closest thing to having a Fed in our own lives would be a rich uncle with a philanthropic streak, checks the odometer on your car when he visits, chomps down on his Cohiba and gives a slight frown and says "I think you need a new car, you wanna hit the Saturn dealership tomorrow?"
ReplyDeletemy initial support for the war was the idea that bringing democracy to that region of the world would get neighboring people to want likewise in their countries. It doesn't seem to be working out that way yet.
ReplyDeleteIt was an idealistic gamble and it seemed to be paying off when people cheered the statue of their tyrant coming down. I know conservatives still haven't gotten over Vietnam, they say leaving there left South Vietnam and then Cambodia open to Communist takeovers and they point to the murderous regime of the Khmer Rouge in killing 1 million Cambodians. I think they want Iraq to work and not go down in history as a second Vietnam. I can understand this but eventually we have to be talking timeframe here, it can't go on for a lifetime and Iraq itself needs to take charge more in the security of their own country.
ReplyDelete"I think they want Iraq to work and not go down in history as a second Vietnam."
ReplyDeleteThis is true. This is why when Hillary and Obama bashers get going, and we know who they are, their not being very logical. The premise amongst Democrats was to get BUSH to pull out of Iraq and then if it ended up a huge cluster**** the dirt would be on his hands. They don't want that accountability and it's for that very reason that it's a bit ridiculous to think that either Hillary or Obama would disengage completely (despite what they might say otherwise) and let the country spiral and have the accountability fall directly on them.
But, I don't blame the Hillary and Obama bashers, they're so focused demeaning them in an effort to make their own candidate look viable that they don't have time for much else.
Don't get me wrong here though, I do believe that Hillary or Obama, in tandem with a Democratic House and Senate, would be a nightmare. However, I think it's a farce to think it'll be all roses with McCain in there given his leftward tendencies.
I want no part of either.
Obama actually said in an interview with Jim Lehrer that, get this: "we have to be as careful pulling out of Iraq as we were careless getting in" and I know a few people, very conservative, who were against the war at the start but agree with this assessment. The real problem with the Vietnam War was not just should we have even been there but
ReplyDeletethe Draft
and that's now a bogeyman even with conservatives, they are always denying that we would ever have one again, volunteer army and all. The only thing worse than a draft is a draft for a war that not everyone can get behind. BTW soapie, you have some wonderful insights.
Both Obama and Hillary have back pedaled on their claims that they will pull out of Iraq if they get elected. Rush made a good comment today especially about Hillary, and her saying she will not give up her run for president without a fight, then why should she think we shouldn't keep fighting in Iraq?
ReplyDeleteThe way I look at it is we haven't even gotten the main villain here and that would be OBL, it's been how many years? The guy's probably on dialysis living in a cave somewhere but by our continued failure to bring him to justice we have mythologized him like if we got within 100 yards of him he'd genie himself and waft away in a wisp of black smoke, his big face in the sky laughing at us...just my .02.
ReplyDelete