Ezra Klein has a great column in the Washington Post today. I have lately been blaming the Democrats for not adequately explaining the health reform bill causing its potential demise. They should be explaining it as being the fiscally conservative and financially responsible course of action. Instead all you hear about is a $900 billion health reform bill. When in fact it will reduce the debt long term. Unfortunately our budget estimates are limited to 10 year projections. Health care is a 25 year problem and thus can't be explained easily. If it can't be explained in a 30 second sound bite forget it!
Instead of blaming the Democrats, maybe its just that the majority of the populace just is not capable of understanding the dilemma being faced. This is more or Mr. Klein's point that America just doesn't get it. His basic premise is that the majority of the population cannot understand complex economic policies.
"The administration's first year was premised on two very difficult, very counterintuitive and very important economic arguments. The first was that the deficit problem is a function of health-care spending. The second was that the government's role in a recession is to spend, and to spend hard. The rhetoric and policy of the past week were proof that Americans have not been convinced."
Instead of retreating to the sound bite, I hope Obama keeps talking and explaining. And if it goes down, at least it goes down with the truth.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Friday, October 24, 2008
NM Op Ed Piece - Remarkable in many ways (none good)
Below is a submitted editorial piece from a NM newspaper.
My comments are embedded in italics
Why I'm a Republican
Alamogordo Daily News
Article Launched: 10/21/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT
I read in today's paper what a woman wrote explaining why she's a Democrat. Let me tell you why I'm not. I'm a Republican because:
I believe in a sovereign God who sometimes gives us what we deserve.
Because Republicans only believe in God?
I believe Muslims are our enemies.
We better get busy, since we're vastly outnumbered. And I guess all the US located mosques flying the American Flag is just a ruse.
I believe in life. A baby is not just a fetus, but a living being no matter where it resides.
I think her argument should be a fetus is a baby, but that's besides the point. We can agree that its tragic to have to have an abortion whether its by choice or medical necessity, but is it really government's role to provide its will over the internal goings on of a women's body. See below on government is too big.
I believe there is a good reason for the death penalty.
Because killing a living being no matter where it resides is sometimes OK.
I believe in fiscal responsibility, for the government and for us.
Here. Here. Where has this been for the last 8 years under Republican control. As I remember the Democrats last left us with a budget surplus.
I believe the government is way too big and rife with greed and corruption.
So let's move the greed and corruption to the private sector where it can really get out of control. Is she serious... $700B that could have been avoided with better government controls.
I believe in the truth. People believe lies because it's much easier than finding the truth.
And where can we find the truth... I'm sure she'd recommend the New Testament. Why value scientific thought and experimentation.
I believe in personal responsibility. That includes spanking your children.
Ummm. Thing that comes to mind for personal responsibility is spanking your children? This is just weird.
I believe American women should raise their own children and American men should be men enough to pay for children they've produced.
So, no abortion, no adoption, no options!
I believe a man and woman make marriage. Period.
Why do Republicans feel so threatened. Who cares what its called.
I believe in America first and foremost and we ought to take care of our own people, our own land, and illegal aliens should go home.
I believe in guns and knowing how to use them properly.
So I guess Republicans would believe in a testing requirement to own guns to assure that the user knows how to use it properly.
I believe war is a fact of life and we should always win.
Republicans also used to believe in defining what winning meant before waging war.
I believe in lower taxes. I know how to spend money better than Congress any day of the week.
Just don't complain when you're stuck in traffic or the city buses break down, or there is nobody monitoring the banks, or nobody available to investigate the break in at your house, or fight the wars that are a fact of life. Oh you didn't wisely spend your money to the private entities to provide these services?
I believe in voter ID.
Agree with you here.
I believe there is a moderate and a socialist in this election. I agree with a two-party system, but Obama isn't a messiah or a democrat.
He's a Muslim socialist.
Just Remarkable!!!
My comments are embedded in italics
Why I'm a Republican
Alamogordo Daily News
Article Launched: 10/21/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT
I read in today's paper what a woman wrote explaining why she's a Democrat. Let me tell you why I'm not. I'm a Republican because:
I believe in a sovereign God who sometimes gives us what we deserve.
Because Republicans only believe in God?
I believe Muslims are our enemies.
We better get busy, since we're vastly outnumbered. And I guess all the US located mosques flying the American Flag is just a ruse.
I believe in life. A baby is not just a fetus, but a living being no matter where it resides.
I think her argument should be a fetus is a baby, but that's besides the point. We can agree that its tragic to have to have an abortion whether its by choice or medical necessity, but is it really government's role to provide its will over the internal goings on of a women's body. See below on government is too big.
I believe there is a good reason for the death penalty.
Because killing a living being no matter where it resides is sometimes OK.
I believe in fiscal responsibility, for the government and for us.
Here. Here. Where has this been for the last 8 years under Republican control. As I remember the Democrats last left us with a budget surplus.
I believe the government is way too big and rife with greed and corruption.
So let's move the greed and corruption to the private sector where it can really get out of control. Is she serious... $700B that could have been avoided with better government controls.
I believe in the truth. People believe lies because it's much easier than finding the truth.
And where can we find the truth... I'm sure she'd recommend the New Testament. Why value scientific thought and experimentation.
I believe in personal responsibility. That includes spanking your children.
Ummm. Thing that comes to mind for personal responsibility is spanking your children? This is just weird.
I believe American women should raise their own children and American men should be men enough to pay for children they've produced.
So, no abortion, no adoption, no options!
I believe a man and woman make marriage. Period.
Why do Republicans feel so threatened. Who cares what its called.
I believe in America first and foremost and we ought to take care of our own people, our own land, and illegal aliens should go home.
I believe in guns and knowing how to use them properly.
So I guess Republicans would believe in a testing requirement to own guns to assure that the user knows how to use it properly.
I believe war is a fact of life and we should always win.
Republicans also used to believe in defining what winning meant before waging war.
I believe in lower taxes. I know how to spend money better than Congress any day of the week.
Just don't complain when you're stuck in traffic or the city buses break down, or there is nobody monitoring the banks, or nobody available to investigate the break in at your house, or fight the wars that are a fact of life. Oh you didn't wisely spend your money to the private entities to provide these services?
I believe in voter ID.
Agree with you here.
I believe there is a moderate and a socialist in this election. I agree with a two-party system, but Obama isn't a messiah or a democrat.
He's a Muslim socialist.
Just Remarkable!!!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
New From The Onion... Oh wait this is true!
At first I thought this story was an hysterical creation of the The Onion, until I realized that this was a true story. Apparently, Fox News picked up on the original critique of the ad and ran heavy with it. The spin of course was that dunkin donuts was of course being un-American. To me this is insane! On my way home they were talking about the story on NPR and likened the reaction to a call to ban hooded sweatshirts because they celebrate the unibomber. At least someone has common sense; its too bad that Dunkin Donuts was forced to drop the ad.
Dunkin' Donuts scarf ad flap "silly"-Islamic group
Thu May 29, 2008 6:44pm EDT
By Marcy Nicholson
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A move by Dunkin' Donuts to pull an online ad featuring Rachael Ray after a blogger dubbed the celebrity chef's scarf "hate couture" was an "incredibly silly situation," a U.S. Islamic lobby group said on Thursday.
The ad, online for two weeks before Dunkin' Donuts removed it last weekend, showed TV host Ray wearing a black and white scarf that some critics likened to a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress.
Columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin said it was "hate couture," after which others made similar criticisms.
"It's sad that Dunkin' Donuts pandered to that kind of fear-mongering. They have businesses in the Middle East, in the Arab world. It's interesting to see how that will affect business there," said Ahmed Rehab, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Dunkin' Donuts, which calls itself the world's largest coffee and baked goods chain, said in a statement Ray had been wearing a silk scarf with a "paisley design" selected by a stylist with no intended symbolism. It pulled the ad due to the possibility of misperception, the company said.
Ray hosts morning lifestyle show "Rachael Ray" on ABC, also appears on the Food Network and has written recipe books.
"Our comment is no comment whatsoever," Ray's spokesman Charlie Dougiello said when asked about the ad's removal.
Dunkin' Donuts scarf ad flap "silly"-Islamic group
Thu May 29, 2008 6:44pm EDT
By Marcy Nicholson
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A move by Dunkin' Donuts to pull an online ad featuring Rachael Ray after a blogger dubbed the celebrity chef's scarf "hate couture" was an "incredibly silly situation," a U.S. Islamic lobby group said on Thursday.
The ad, online for two weeks before Dunkin' Donuts removed it last weekend, showed TV host Ray wearing a black and white scarf that some critics likened to a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress.
Columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin said it was "hate couture," after which others made similar criticisms.
"It's sad that Dunkin' Donuts pandered to that kind of fear-mongering. They have businesses in the Middle East, in the Arab world. It's interesting to see how that will affect business there," said Ahmed Rehab, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Dunkin' Donuts, which calls itself the world's largest coffee and baked goods chain, said in a statement Ray had been wearing a silk scarf with a "paisley design" selected by a stylist with no intended symbolism. It pulled the ad due to the possibility of misperception, the company said.
Ray hosts morning lifestyle show "Rachael Ray" on ABC, also appears on the Food Network and has written recipe books.
"Our comment is no comment whatsoever," Ray's spokesman Charlie Dougiello said when asked about the ad's removal.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
What A Mess
The Washington Post had a great editorial today on Bush's new budget proposal. They took the opportunity to reflect as well on how it typifies the Bush domestic legacy - an utter disaster. Couple the domestic mess with the foreign policy fiasco, he definitely gives James Buchanan a run for his money.
From Washington Post
Budget Mess
President Bush's last spending plan only adds to a disastrous fiscal legacy.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008; A18
SEVEN LONG years ago, a new president submitted his first budget -- an optimistic document now relevant only as a chastening artifact of a bygone era. In that "Blueprint for New Beginnings," George W. Bush grappled with the supposed challenge of dealing with a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next decade. The president proposed to pay down the debt by $2 trillion during that time, which, he said, was as much as could be responsibly redeemed. He offered lavish tax cuts. And he vowed to "confront great challenges from which Government has too long flinched," putting Social Security and Medicare on solid financial footing.
The final budget of Mr. Bush's presidency arrived yesterday, and the contrast between then and now could hardly be more sobering. Instead of being paid down, the national debt has grown by $2 trillion. The $725 billion surplus once projected for the coming fiscal year (2009) has evaporated. In its place is a $407 billion deficit -- an unrealistically rosy number that omits billions in likely war spending and is artificially reduced by including the $200 billion Social Security surplus. The explosion in entitlement costs has been left unaddressed and is therefore even more daunting. Indeed, on entitlements, Mr. Bush's legacy will be to have added to the long-term tab with the addition of an expensive Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Some of this transformation, as the administration would be the first to point out, is not Mr. Bush's fault. Even as he submitted that initial budget, the economy was slowing. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, further rattled the economy and imposed huge unanticipated costs for homeland security and military operations overseas. Mr. Bush tried to launch the necessary debate on Social Security, and, although the president can be faulted for having poisoned the well with a relentlessly partisan legislative strategy, congressional Democrats chose to respond with more partisanship.
But the fact remains that the purported surplus on which Mr. Bush based his tax-cutting agenda was always something of a mirage, and the president has never been willing to adjust his agenda to the grim new fiscal reality. Yesterday's promise of a small surplus by 2012 is once again premised on omitting likely costs (zero is budgeted for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) and by assuming cuts to domestic spending that are unachievable politically and, in large part, unwise as a matter of policy.
As always, Mr. Bush pledges to press ahead with his tax-cutting agenda: another $2.4 trillion over the next decade, $3.7 trillion if relief from the alternative minimum tax is included. The president argues that failing to extend his previous tax cuts would result in an average tax increase of $1,800. But Mr. Bush neglects to point out that the overwhelming share of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest Americans. The top 1 percent of households -- those with incomes of more than $450,000 -- would get 31 percent of the benefits, with tax cuts averaging $67,000 by 2012. And Mr. Bush does not even propose fully paying for these cuts: The budget he submitted yesterday envisions another $397 billion in deficit spending over the next five years because it would devote more money to tax cuts than it would cut in spending.
Mr. Bush inherited a potential windfall -- and squandered it. The next president will inherit his mess.
From Washington Post
Budget Mess
President Bush's last spending plan only adds to a disastrous fiscal legacy.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008; A18
SEVEN LONG years ago, a new president submitted his first budget -- an optimistic document now relevant only as a chastening artifact of a bygone era. In that "Blueprint for New Beginnings," George W. Bush grappled with the supposed challenge of dealing with a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next decade. The president proposed to pay down the debt by $2 trillion during that time, which, he said, was as much as could be responsibly redeemed. He offered lavish tax cuts. And he vowed to "confront great challenges from which Government has too long flinched," putting Social Security and Medicare on solid financial footing.
The final budget of Mr. Bush's presidency arrived yesterday, and the contrast between then and now could hardly be more sobering. Instead of being paid down, the national debt has grown by $2 trillion. The $725 billion surplus once projected for the coming fiscal year (2009) has evaporated. In its place is a $407 billion deficit -- an unrealistically rosy number that omits billions in likely war spending and is artificially reduced by including the $200 billion Social Security surplus. The explosion in entitlement costs has been left unaddressed and is therefore even more daunting. Indeed, on entitlements, Mr. Bush's legacy will be to have added to the long-term tab with the addition of an expensive Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Some of this transformation, as the administration would be the first to point out, is not Mr. Bush's fault. Even as he submitted that initial budget, the economy was slowing. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, further rattled the economy and imposed huge unanticipated costs for homeland security and military operations overseas. Mr. Bush tried to launch the necessary debate on Social Security, and, although the president can be faulted for having poisoned the well with a relentlessly partisan legislative strategy, congressional Democrats chose to respond with more partisanship.
But the fact remains that the purported surplus on which Mr. Bush based his tax-cutting agenda was always something of a mirage, and the president has never been willing to adjust his agenda to the grim new fiscal reality. Yesterday's promise of a small surplus by 2012 is once again premised on omitting likely costs (zero is budgeted for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) and by assuming cuts to domestic spending that are unachievable politically and, in large part, unwise as a matter of policy.
As always, Mr. Bush pledges to press ahead with his tax-cutting agenda: another $2.4 trillion over the next decade, $3.7 trillion if relief from the alternative minimum tax is included. The president argues that failing to extend his previous tax cuts would result in an average tax increase of $1,800. But Mr. Bush neglects to point out that the overwhelming share of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest Americans. The top 1 percent of households -- those with incomes of more than $450,000 -- would get 31 percent of the benefits, with tax cuts averaging $67,000 by 2012. And Mr. Bush does not even propose fully paying for these cuts: The budget he submitted yesterday envisions another $397 billion in deficit spending over the next five years because it would devote more money to tax cuts than it would cut in spending.
Mr. Bush inherited a potential windfall -- and squandered it. The next president will inherit his mess.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
More Repercussions To Come
Interesting column in Time Magazine from a few weeks ago. I finally just got to reading it, but it discussed the Iraqi refugees; all 2.5 million of them!! This is a little discussed side-story of the war, but one I feel will have significant impact years from now.
A million have gone to Syria, now making up 5% of the population of that country. However, like previous middle eastern refugees, namely the Palestinians, the Iraqi refugees there are not quite being welcomed with open arms. The border now is tightly controlled essentially cutting off any new refugees. Jordan has also taken almost a million. They are not faring well there either; of the 200,000 children who fled to Jordan only 20,000 attended school last year and 6,000 of those dropped out. Can anybody think of an uneducated group that nobody wanted living in the Middle East... I think they are running Gaza right now!
Anyway as disturbing as the millions fleeing to nearby states, last year the US took in a whopping 535 Iraqi refugees and only 1,700 since the war began. Sweden has taken in almost 9,000 and they opposed the war. The US isn't even letting in those Iraqi's that have risked their lives helping us. So much for winning the hearts and minds.
A million have gone to Syria, now making up 5% of the population of that country. However, like previous middle eastern refugees, namely the Palestinians, the Iraqi refugees there are not quite being welcomed with open arms. The border now is tightly controlled essentially cutting off any new refugees. Jordan has also taken almost a million. They are not faring well there either; of the 200,000 children who fled to Jordan only 20,000 attended school last year and 6,000 of those dropped out. Can anybody think of an uneducated group that nobody wanted living in the Middle East... I think they are running Gaza right now!
Anyway as disturbing as the millions fleeing to nearby states, last year the US took in a whopping 535 Iraqi refugees and only 1,700 since the war began. Sweden has taken in almost 9,000 and they opposed the war. The US isn't even letting in those Iraqi's that have risked their lives helping us. So much for winning the hearts and minds.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Signs Of A Different Iran
Today I read an encouraging article today reported by the AP. It is the story of a very successful mini-series running on Iranian TV. The streets in Tehran are described as emptying as everyone rushes home to watch the program. What kind of program in Iran can get this large an audience? Just a Parisian WWII love story between an Iranian diplomat and a Jewish woman who must be saved from being taken to a concentration camp. In the process the Iranian saves many more Jews with Iranian passports.
News reports first reported by the Wall St. journal can be found here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448022,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601363.html
So what to make of this... The fact that the masses in Iran are watching this program and from the quotes reported in the articles, the Iranians do not appear to be Holocaust deniers like their President. This type of reaction by the Iranian people further enforces the belief that the majority of the people of Iran are relatively moderate and modern Muslims being controlled by a conservative (and partially crazy) government.
So what to do... Not sure, but I do know we need to tread carefully. We may have a modern, well educated, Muslim people who actually don't hate the US and for that matter may not hate Jews (they probably still hate the State Of Israel, but we can deal with that one later). Yet, the government is extremist, terrorist supporting, and attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. You know that when the French are ready for war, its pretty serious.
Continued slow steps and less sword rattling rhetoric would be a start. If things progress poorly on the nuclear weapon front, I could see limited air strikes on nuclear facilities but every precaution taken to limit civilian casualties - even to the point of cash inflows to the citizens of the towns affected (I'm sure the CIA can figure out a way to disperse cash inside Iran). All I know is that we (America) can not afford to blow this one!!
Anyway, any positive note on the culture in Iran is good one and this type of intel is as good as the military intel reports in order to better understand our current enemy and maybe potential friend.
News reports first reported by the Wall St. journal can be found here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448022,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601363.html
So what to make of this... The fact that the masses in Iran are watching this program and from the quotes reported in the articles, the Iranians do not appear to be Holocaust deniers like their President. This type of reaction by the Iranian people further enforces the belief that the majority of the people of Iran are relatively moderate and modern Muslims being controlled by a conservative (and partially crazy) government.
So what to do... Not sure, but I do know we need to tread carefully. We may have a modern, well educated, Muslim people who actually don't hate the US and for that matter may not hate Jews (they probably still hate the State Of Israel, but we can deal with that one later). Yet, the government is extremist, terrorist supporting, and attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. You know that when the French are ready for war, its pretty serious.
Continued slow steps and less sword rattling rhetoric would be a start. If things progress poorly on the nuclear weapon front, I could see limited air strikes on nuclear facilities but every precaution taken to limit civilian casualties - even to the point of cash inflows to the citizens of the towns affected (I'm sure the CIA can figure out a way to disperse cash inside Iran). All I know is that we (America) can not afford to blow this one!!
Anyway, any positive note on the culture in Iran is good one and this type of intel is as good as the military intel reports in order to better understand our current enemy and maybe potential friend.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
From The Onion... So often they just nail the story!
Lieberman Advocates Attack On Iran
Sen. Joe Lieberman told Face The Nation the U.S. should bomb Iran because they continue to aid anti-American forces in Iraq. What do you think?
Larry Higgins, Masseur "Wow, my uneducated 12-year-old son said the same thing!"
Wendy Scanlon, Furniture Salesperson "Lieberman should stop going on that show. Bob Schieffer must antagonize the hell out of him during commercial breaks, and that leads to dumbshit comments like this."
Charles Garvey, Pharmacist "If I didn't know that was solid foreign policy, I'd swear it was incoherent mumbling!"
Monday, June 04, 2007
Simply Put, We're Screwed
As reported by several news agencies, last Thursday Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV aired a school's kindergarten graduation event. The video speaks for itself.
I know there is argument to made that this is exactly why we're in Iraq; we've got to fight the terrorists over there. That argument just cannot stand since this video is in Gaza. Are we going there next? How about the other 300 Million Arabs that are pretty much living shitty existences? Add to that the Persians and East Asian Muslims and we're at a billion people; the good majority living in at best 2nd world conditions, mostly 3rd world. I'm pretty sure even the US doesn't "win" a war against 1 billion people. So what to do... For the near term (50+ years or so) I think we are really screwed. We were probably destined for that without the Iraq war, but it certainly didn't help. What do I think we can start doing to help things so that maybe by 2060 things will be better?
- Start helping these countries. At least start helping the ones we are on half decent terms with.
Getting decent sanitation, plumbing, and a full refrigerator I bet would go a long way in preventing parents from volunteering their kids for holy jihad.
- Stop helping the countries that should be providing better for their people; namely Saudia Arabia and Egypt, who with Iran and Syria, are allowing the arms to flow to both Iraq and Gaza.
The money spent on waging an unwinnable war will be ten fold more than the financial aid and administration of that aid that could make an appreciable difference.
I know there is argument to made that this is exactly why we're in Iraq; we've got to fight the terrorists over there. That argument just cannot stand since this video is in Gaza. Are we going there next? How about the other 300 Million Arabs that are pretty much living shitty existences? Add to that the Persians and East Asian Muslims and we're at a billion people; the good majority living in at best 2nd world conditions, mostly 3rd world. I'm pretty sure even the US doesn't "win" a war against 1 billion people. So what to do... For the near term (50+ years or so) I think we are really screwed. We were probably destined for that without the Iraq war, but it certainly didn't help. What do I think we can start doing to help things so that maybe by 2060 things will be better?
- Start helping these countries. At least start helping the ones we are on half decent terms with.
Getting decent sanitation, plumbing, and a full refrigerator I bet would go a long way in preventing parents from volunteering their kids for holy jihad.
- Stop helping the countries that should be providing better for their people; namely Saudia Arabia and Egypt, who with Iran and Syria, are allowing the arms to flow to both Iraq and Gaza.
The money spent on waging an unwinnable war will be ten fold more than the financial aid and administration of that aid that could make an appreciable difference.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Can We Get A Real Leader, Please?
As with most of the country, I think its time to get out of Iraq (for the record, I never thought we should be in Iraq in the first place). But, if we're there we better darn do our best to stabilize and help build or rebuild that country. I was heartened to hear in Bush's state of the union that he seemed to finally start talking about making financial investment into rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and to get people working. It's about time!!! I wonder what the US would be like if we had 50% unemployment or partial employment (<15 hours/wk), or rather closer to 70% if you count those not working but being paid a government subsidy. I don't think we'd resort to car bombs, at least I hope not, but I'm pretty sure I'd start locking my doors and windows at night.
So, I am utterly dismayed by the Washington Post article I read this morning. Apparently the Defense Dept. wants to get some Iraqi factories up and running to get people working. The idea being if the people are working, they will be less inclined to commit violent acts. Its not that different from welfare reform in the mid 90's. At $1B a day for the war effort, the cost for this is peanuts. What could be wrong? Well, apparently the State Department doesn't like the idea of government run industries. They don't want us to set a precedent for the US to support this form of an economy. Rather, the State Department wants private industry to finance and run the rebuilding of the Iraqi economy. Excuse me, but what moron would invest in a factory in Baghdad today? In fact, the State Dept. has been trying this route for sometime and I guess they're surprised by the lack of offers.
Well, we have the Department of Defense and the Dept of State who can't seem to agree, meanwhile the mess and deaths continue. Both agencies report to the President. What is Bush doing? Can we get a real leader, please? Here is the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301165.html
So, I am utterly dismayed by the Washington Post article I read this morning. Apparently the Defense Dept. wants to get some Iraqi factories up and running to get people working. The idea being if the people are working, they will be less inclined to commit violent acts. Its not that different from welfare reform in the mid 90's. At $1B a day for the war effort, the cost for this is peanuts. What could be wrong? Well, apparently the State Department doesn't like the idea of government run industries. They don't want us to set a precedent for the US to support this form of an economy. Rather, the State Department wants private industry to finance and run the rebuilding of the Iraqi economy. Excuse me, but what moron would invest in a factory in Baghdad today? In fact, the State Dept. has been trying this route for sometime and I guess they're surprised by the lack of offers.
Well, we have the Department of Defense and the Dept of State who can't seem to agree, meanwhile the mess and deaths continue. Both agencies report to the President. What is Bush doing? Can we get a real leader, please? Here is the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301165.html
Friday, April 06, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
