AP Poll: Stimulus Checks Welcome, but to Really Help the Economy US Should Leave Iraq
As Bush pushes for his stimulus bill, a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll has revealed that many Americans think there is another way to stimulate the US economy: withdraw from the Iraq war.
The $168 billion economic rescue package Congress rushed to approval this week includes rebates of $600 to $1,200 for most taxpayers, the hope being that they will spend the money and help revive ailing businesses. President Bush is expected to sign the measure next week. Poor wage-earners, as well as seniors and veterans who live almost entirely off Social Security and disability benefits, would get $300 checks.
However, just 19 percent of the people surveyed said they planned to go out and spend the money; 45 percent said they'd use it to pay bills. And nearly half said what the government really should do is get out of Iraq.
Forty-eight percent said a pullout would help fix the country's economic problems "a great deal," and an additional 20 percent said it would help at least somewhat.
It really is extraordinary that, whilst talking about a possible recession, the Republicans never seem to factor the cost of the Iraq war into their calculations. It really is an unbelievable blind spot.
The Iraq war is costing $275 million per day, and the final cost of the war is said to be approaching $1.3 trillion.
And the way that money has been spent says a lot about the kind of conflict that Iraq has become:
An estimated 250,000 bullets have been fired for every insurgent killed in Iraq. That's not just a waste of ammunition; it's also a reflection of how badly the country has been damaged and how indiscriminate some of the fighting has been.However, to the Republicans there is no link between waste on this scale and a looming recession. But the really depressing thing is to imagine all the positive improvements that could have been made with $1.3 trillion, the hospitals and schools that could have been built, the number of Americans who could have been rescued from poverty, the number of uninsured who could have been brought under the umbrella of the health system.
Were that amount of money to have been spent on anything else, the Republicans would have been up in arms, denouncing it as "socialist" and as something that could not possibly be afforded. But when it's spent on war, it's not only a good thing, but it is deemed to have no effect on the economy at all.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
7 comments:
So then if I understand you, you believe that financial issues should be a prime consideration when a nation is deciding whether or not to undertake a lengthy military conflict?
We didn't really "decide to undertake a lengthy military conflict", did we? Iraq was supposed to be "several months at most" by Rummy's estimation. Bush fired the guy who said Iraq could cost as much as $100 billion. We "decided" to undertake a quick, relatively inexpensive conflict, but the Decider and his bozos made it into a "lengthy military conflict" with an astronomical cost.
And, not to speak for Kel, but YES, in a war of choice (such as Iraq is), certainly the cost should be considered beforehand. We weren't threatened by Iraq. There is nothing in our vital interest as to whether Iraq is controlled by Shia or Sunni. We might as well spend a trillion to determine which tribe controls Tonga; it matters about as much to our security.
Thank you Todd, you make my point eloquently. Iraq was a totally unnecessary war of choice. Before embarking on such campaigns the cost should always be considered.
And, I would argue, it would be useful to consider whether the money might not be better spent on more valuable projects at home.
Iraq was a totally unnecessary war of choice.
You mean, kind of like declaring war against Germany was for the US?
But you answered my question. You believe that in questions of national security and/or foreign interests, the checkbook should rule our decision making.
I'll take it a step farther, here's what you really believe: If you agree with the use of military force (which let's face it, for you this would be almost never) then it is justified, righteous, and of course the financial costs aren't of great importance. If you disagree with the reason for using the military, then the use of the military was unnecessary and unjust and we should be busy redistributing our nation's (mine, not yours) wealth to the poor, meaning the cost is of the utmost importance.
We declared war against Germany and Italy because they were allies of Japan, which actually did attack us. Up until then, we were content to make piles of money (gold, actually) selling arms to the Soviet Union and Britain. And in WW1, we had to go in because Germany promised Mexico the American Southwest if they would attack us (Zimmerman Telegram). Germany also declared they would sink any of our ships at will, and did so.
These were not wars of choice. There were responses to direct threats on our country. Iraq had nothing to with 9/11 or with any attack on our country. National security had nothing to do with it.
As for your putting words in my mouth, I decline to play your game. I would note, however, that Republicans raised the issue of cost in the Kosovo effort under Clinton, so perhaps your criticism of apparent hypocrisy would be better directed toward them. I do wonder if you would support spending a trillion dollars in my hypothetical campaign to determine which tribe controls Tonga, or if you would instead employ the same hypocrisy with which you accuse me of in that case. But I will not put words into your mouth, nor tell you what you really believe, because that is pointless and silly.
You mean, kind of like declaring war against Germany was for the US?
Dear God, Jason that's unspeakably weak. Firstly, you didn't declare war on Germany, the German Ambassador walked into the state department and declared war on you. Secondly, the German army represented a grave threat, Saddam did not.
You believe that in questions of national security and/or foreign interests, the checkbook should rule our decision making.
What piffle. Were national security or foreign interests at risk the chequebook should have nothing to do with anything, the whole point here is that national security was never at risk from Iraq and that Bush and Co made a decision to invade anyway.
I'll take it a step farther, here's what you really believe: If you agree with the use of military force (which let's face it, for you this would be almost never)
Again, you are making ridiculous assumptions. I supported Kosovo just as I supported the First Gulf war led by Bush's father.
The whole point is that Bush and Co decided to invade Iraq when there was no need for them to do so. In the wars I supported there were valid reasons for entering both times; to stop ethnic cleansing and to expel Saddam from Kuwait. Bush invaded Iraq through choice. There was no overwhelming need for him to intervene.
As for your putting words in my mouth, I decline to play your game.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. If you would notice, the quote I responded to was not yours.
Post a Comment