[kenberg]

As some of you may have noticed the USA and the world (not to mention myself) are a little poorer now than was the case a month or so ago. I ask:

How much will victory in Afghanistan cost? One may begin by defining victory. And then by defining cost.


Pakistan has nukes. Got that. Pakistan is next door to Afghanistan. Got that too. Serious stuff. Still, I ask, what exactly is the plan here? More troops. Got it. Can we say a little more please?

I really would like to hear our candidates say a few words about this issue tonight. Is there a Maverick view on this? A Change view?

[cherdano]

There won't be any foreign policy questions in the remaining debates as far as I know.

[awm]

Apparently for this debate they gathered a bunch of undecided voters. They were careful to make sure these voters were really undecided. Then they let the voters come up with their own questions. The questions are not vetted by the debate sponsors. So it appears that they will pretty much let the audience ask the candidates whatever they want. This could make for an interesting format.

[mike777]

awm, on Oct 7 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

Apparently for this debate they gathered a bunch of undecided voters. They were careful to make sure these voters were really undecided. Then they let the voters come up with their own questions. The questions are not vetted by the debate sponsors. So it appears that they will pretty much let the audience ask the candidates whatever they want. This could make for an interesting format.

I hope they can decide what question to ask before the debate starts. It sounds like they have a hard time deciding.

[kenberg]

I didn't know that this was the format! It has potential.
Ten minutes from now and I will see how that works out.

[cherdano]

awm, on Oct 7 2008, 05:56 PM, said:

Apparently for this debate they gathered a bunch of undecided voters. They were careful to make sure these voters were really undecided. Then they let the voters come up with their own questions. The questions are not vetted by the debate sponsors. So it appears that they will pretty much let the audience ask the candidates whatever they want. This could make for an interesting format.

Mmmm, the questions were still selected by Tom Brokaw, in my understanding (which may not say much, see above).

Anyway, in hindsight I think the format was terrible.

[kenberg]

On question that I liked a great deal came via email from a seventy something. A child of the depression I believe Brokaw called her. What sacrifices would you ask the American people to make? If you listen to much of the rhetoric, it would seem that the main obligation I have to the future of the country is to go out and spend lots of money to keep the economy humming. Never mind if I need the stuff I buy or if I can afford it, just spend. Obama at least approximately responded to this question.

Not all spending is equal. We need bridges, we don't need more gadgets. We need as a country, and many need as individuals, to greatly reduce our debt. It's far from clear to me that we need a cut in our taxes. Progress in solving problems will cost money. If we, as a nation, decide that investment in scientific research into areas such as climate change, and paying up front for that research, is more important than getting a tax refund to squander on the latest crap, I think this would be very good.

Reorienting priorities involves leadership. I hope to see some.

[helene_t]

"What sacrifices would you ask the American people to make?" sounds like a good question.

If the choice is between less public services or higher taxes, I think federal government should leave that to the states or local authorities, especially now that the country is so divided. No matter who wins, close to half of the population will be living in states where the majority voted for the other candidate.

But of course, the issues you mention (climate change, research) cannot be decided on a purely state/local level.

[Al_U_Card]

Afghanistan was to placate the arms merchants and to be used as the gateway back into Iraq.

It has been a killing ground for many centuries.

A nice place to expend armaments (and innocent lives) as it is far from home.

There is, however, that nice opium crop, and like oil, money is apparently worth fighting for.

They will never address that issue, because those that call the shots would not allow it.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Oct 8 2008, 08:43 AM, said:

Not all spending is equal. We need bridges, we don't need more gadgets. We need as a country, and many need as individuals, to greatly reduce our debt. It's far from clear to me that we need a cut in our taxes. Progress in solving problems will cost money.

Indeed, I hate that both Obama and McCain are calling for more tax cuts in the face of the immense budget deficit and US national debt. Apparently the political calculation is that telling the truth about this to the American people means certain defeat. What a sad, sad state of affairs.

The exploding national debt is a crisis developing in slow motion before our eyes, and many voters seem totally oblivious. People are angry now, but that is nothing compared to the anger that will be unleashed when the bill comes due for the fiscal irresponsibility of the last eight years.

Of course, like everyone, I would like tax cuts, but only after spending cuts result in a substantial budget surplus. And even then, some of any surplus should be retained to pay down the debt.

After World War II, every president, democrat or republican, reduced our national debt as a percentage of GDP except for three: Reagan, Bush, and Bush. But, because of those three, we now owe $10 trillion. We owe that money because our irresponsible presidents advocated cutting taxes before cutting spending. Of the three presidents responsible for our predicament, Bush Sr. seemed to know how foolish this was ("voodoo economics"), but all were trolling for votes from "me generation" fools always looking for the easy way out.

Now it seems that so many folks have fallen for this nonsense that, in order to have a chance to win, candidates for both major parties have to pander to the idiots who believe it. And our children and grandchildren will have to take on this huge burden on top of their own substantial problems.

[helene_t]

PassedOut, on Oct 8 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

we now owe $10 trillion.

iow an average household of three people pays interests of a dept of a little more than $100,000.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Oct 8 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

The exploding national debt is a crisis developing in slow motion before our eyes, and many voters seem totally oblivious. People are angry now, but that is nothing compared to the anger that will be unleashed when the bill comes due for the fiscal irresponsibility of the last eight years.

if you changed "... of the last eight years." to "... of the federal government." we'd be in agreement... we keep blaming the administration rather than the gov't as a whole, and that's because (imo) we are so partisan... the legislative branch has as much if not more to do with this as the executive branch... how do you individually get into debt? how do you get out of debt (forget bankruptcy, though i guess the usa could default)?

it's true that tax cuts are inappropriate unless paid for, but it's just as true that gov't programs are inappropriate unless paid for... the politicians have for generations wanted to cater to their constituencies by giving them more of what they want without a corresponding cut in other spending, or in raising revenue (at least if they did that it would be honest - maybe it would even result in a practical limit on congressional terms)... even if the theory that a set percent of debt to gdp is advisable, at least don't go over that

[skjaeran]

kenberg, on Oct 8 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

How much will victory in Afghanistan cost? One may begin by defining victory. And then by defining cost.

If you mean a military victory, forget it. There will never be a military victory in Afganisthan. Which the NATO leaders should have realized a long time ago. Put in more forces, and the Taliban resistance will only increase.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Oct 8 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

we keep blaming the administration rather than the gov't as a whole, and that's because (imo) we are so partisan...

As a former republican, and as someone who actually believed in 1980 that Reagan would be fiscally responsible, I hold Reagan, Bush, and Bush responsible for this mess precisely because they actually advocated the irresponsible policies that created the $10 trillion debt.

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around, and the democrats are far from blameless for following along like sheep. However, I do understand that the republicans purposely created a political environment in which advocating fiscal responsibility means defeat at the polls. So I think this is a valid partisan issue.

Clinton, in fact, spent a lot of political capital to bring taxes and spending into alignment, strong-arming democrats to go along with the program even though raising taxes went against his own party's political interests. At the time, republicans in congress screamed that making the federal government fiscally responsible would throw the US into a depression. (You might remember that it did not turn out that way.)

Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of many of the expenditures made by the federal government. What I'm saying is that current expenditures -- whether I like them or not -- should be paid for instead of passing the bill to future generations. It's okay to run a small deficit for a year or two in bad economic times so long as you erase it shortly thereafter. But what's going on now is, imo, stealing from the young.

And the partisan aspect of it comes in because Reagan, Bush, and Bush were the presidents who strongly advocated and led the stealing. If it had been the democrats, I would gladly have pointed the finger at them.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Oct 8 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around, and the democrats are far from blameless for following along like sheep. However, I do understand that the republicans purposely created a political environment in which advocating fiscal responsibility means defeat at the polls. So I think this is a valid partisan issue.

do not the democrats pass fiscally irresponsible laws for core constituency groups, without paying for them? i am not arguing that the executive branch is faultless, merely that constitutionally it's the legislative branch that holds the monetary power... you can try as hard as you please but it's impossible to get around that

[kenberg]

I don't pretend to understand macro-economics but I get the idea that we cannot go cold turkey on this. I imagine there will have to be continued spending to avert financial collapse.

Still, I emphasize that not all spending is the same. The lady's question referred to sacrifice. I would like the question to be taken up seriously by the candidates. I don't mean anything like having all of us older folks jump off a cliff on our seventieth birthday to save money on medicare. Much more modest sacrifice could do a lot of good. We accept that the country is in some serious difficulties and we push for government action, where appropriate, to deal with these problems.We agree that we will pay for these programs. We are told that the economy will fall apart unless we spend money. OK, we can collectively spend money on bridges and roads, on existing technology to reduce carbon emissions, on scientific research that will keep us competitive, and so on. The sacrifice, if you can even call it that, would be that we are collectively spending money on activities that will advance the welfare of the entire country and so we would forgo the spending that would have come from a tax cut. I understand that some folks do not have any discretionary money and their needs must be taken into account. But you don't have to be Warren Buffet to see that there are things that need doing, it won't kill us if we have to pay some taxes to get them done, and if they are done correctly it will benefit us more than an 80 inch flat screen tv. And, if I have my macro-economic claims right, it would boost the economy.

By the way, my memories of WWII are a child's memories, the surrender aboard the Missouri took place when I was six. But I do really believe that there was considerable recognition that we were all in this together. Not that everything was smooth, but there was some recognition of the seriousness of it all and a thought that we should all pitch in to deal with it.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on Oct 8 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

The exploding national debt is a crisis developing in slow motion before our eyes, and many voters seem totally oblivious. People are angry now, but that is nothing compared to the anger that will be unleashed when the bill comes due for the fiscal irresponsibility of the last eight years.

Closer to 100 years than eight.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on Oct 8 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

Clinton, in fact, spent a lot of political capital to bring taxes and spending into alignment, strong-arming democrats to go along with the program even though raising taxes went against his own party's political interests. At the time, republicans in congress screamed that making the federal government fiscally responsible would throw the US into a depression. (You might remember that it did not turn out that way.)

Clinton did not "make the government fiscally responsible" although he may have tried. So you can't say that the Republican prediction ("would throw the US into a depression") was wrong. Can't say it was right either, of course. And it now looks like we may end up in a depression anyway.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Oct 8 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 8 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

The exploding national debt is a crisis developing in slow motion before our eyes, and many voters seem totally oblivious. People are angry now, but that is nothing compared to the anger that will be unleashed when the bill comes due for the fiscal irresponsibility of the last eight years.

Closer to 100 years than eight.

I think it reasonable that the nation took on a huge debt during World War II. Much of that debt was held by regular citizens who bought war bonds (instead of spending the money on good times and luxuries) as part of the sacrifices that everyone made during the war.

The reason I point now to the last eight years of fiscal responsibility is that the problem was actually solved during the Clinton years. After the 2000 election, Bush Jr. and the republican congress had only to have heeded some common sense advice: "if it's not broke, don't fix it."

They could have cut programs and waste and then cut taxes to match (if they had succeeded in cutting). And, when Bush decided to attack Iraq, he could have told the taxpayers that taxes would have to remain at sufficient levels to pay for the war. That's what a leader would do.

[blackshoe]

Was FDR "fiscally responsible" before WWII? I certainly don't think so.

Clinton made a start. I don't think the problem was solved. In how many years of the Clinton administration was the budget balanced or showing a surplus?