The stupid, it burns

Submitted by Spartacvs on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 1:30pm. Tags:

Politics

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

Jobs for America: The McCain Economic Plan, page 4.

When we stop running up the deficit we will use the savings from that decision to pay of what we spent and cut taxes too. If only life and getting out of debt were that simple.

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Spartacvs's blog
Login or register to post comments

The scenario (#101905)

by Timmy on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 3:35pm

would produce more capital for the private sector.

Simply put, between the private sector and the government, who makes better investment decisions?

“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961

(

)

It's a world market for capital, Timmy (#101965)

by Wagster on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 8:07pm

The freed-up Chinese money financing the Iraq War could as easily go to Brazil as stay in the U.S.

More Wagster!

(

| parent )

Lately it seems to be the government (#101963)

by HankP on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 7:32pm

the private sector managed to make a couple of trillion go poof.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

Yes. -nt- (#101950)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 5:08pm

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

That Suggests (#101948)

by Model 62 on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 8:35pm

that the deficit runup by the war in Iraq is responsible for the Current Credit Crunch.

But you wouldn't suggest that, would you?

[Edit] It ("the private sector is a better steward of all that credit now used to finance Iraq") also suggests that dumping that credit into Iraq may not have been the best way to employ it. I don't think you meant to suggest that, either.

(

| parent )

How about the private sector (#101915)

by Jordan on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 4:21pm

getting no-bid, no-audit contracts from the government?

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

(

| parent )

If you're talking about the war, that's not even the worst part (#101951)

by tomsyl on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 5:09pm

I've heard too many stories from people back from Iraq about the piss-poor performance of the contractors - refusing to supply outposts, bugging out under fire, and maybe the worst to a serviceman/woman, providing really crappy food.

I've wished before for a genuine audit, followed by an objective Congressional investigation (assuming there could be such a thing - if I see another speech from a pompous d!ckhead like Biden, I'll vomit) into not only the no-bid awards but more importantly, the performance of the contractors in the field. And I'd like to hear from people that served on the front lines in Iraq but who aren't in the military anymore, just to remove real or imagined pressure on them to toe some line.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

(

| parent )

All very reasonable, (#101952)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 5:10pm

and all things I'd like to see, too. Which is why I vote straight-ticket Dem on the Federal level.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

That doesn't seem like enough (#101975)

by Username on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 9:34pm

What can you do once Pelosi and friends refuse to investigate?

(

| parent )

Primaries! -nt- (#101985)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 9:59pm

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

Yes (#101903)

by Gabriel on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 3:30pm

One of the dumbest things I've read in a while.

I expect all politicians to paint rosy pictures that have little relationship to reality but is it too much to ask that the so-called foreign policy expert understand there are no deficit-reducing savings to be had from a victory in Iraq, since the war was financed with debt?

This place is my vacation.

(

)

On sale, save big!!!!!! (#101941)

by Zorrito on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 4:54pm

Strictly speaking, he is correct. Ending the war in Iraq will eliminate the part of the deficit caused by the war. No, it will not reduce the part of the debt caused by the war.

Given that we use the same word to describe spending less money than expected ("On sale, save 20%") and accumulating money ("savings account") the confusion is natural, expected, and taken advantage of.

Politicians have taken it one step further, where "Saving" is "Reducing the rate of spending increase", so McCain is actually being more honest than we should expect for a politician.

(

| parent )

Ha (#101966)

by HankP on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 8:10pm

whenever my wife tells me about a big sale, I tell her "I can't afford to save that much money!"

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

Your last point has become almost universally the case (#101954)

by tomsyl on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 5:28pm

which doesn't make it any less of a lie. And the flip side is that any pol audacious enough to actually propose a reduction in the rate of spending increase on a social program is accused of robbing the poor, throwing unwed mothers out into the street, stealing from cripples and clubbing baby seals to death to make bedroom slippers.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

(

| parent )

Recent Diaries