There's been much debate about the cost of the various healthcare reforms being considered and the effect they may have on the national debt. The latest "scoring" by the Government Budget Office that I've seen of the latest round of proposals would cost about $600 billion over a ten year period.

Just a thought on what other government expenditures might be cut in order to pay for this critically important domestic social program...what about the costs of continuing the wars in Iraq and now back in Afghanistan again?

We've had major deployments of our younger generation to that region of the world for almost a decade. More than 4,000 have been killed and almost 50,000 badly injured. Those sacrifices seem to have had little effect. Now that we're winding down our troop levels in Iraq, the level of secular violence is ramping up. Even though everyone has said that the solution there needs to be a political one, not military, the Iraqi leaders seem no closer to becoming a real government than they were five years ago. We left Afghanistan about five years ago with a newly elected "government" even though everyone knew that about all that government controlled was the capital city and the surrounding area. The traditional warlords and the Taliban continued to control about 2/3 of the country. Now the Taliban is trying to further expand the territory they control, getting close to the capital city itself. And we've now found that the elected President Karzai presides over a largely corrupt government. Today's news reports say that our "generals on the ground" will be asking for increases in the troops strength deployed to Afghanistan from the current 45,000 up to possibly as many as 100,000, about 2/3 of the peak troop levels we ever had in Iraq, even during the initial invasion. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says that the situation in Afghanistan is "critical and worsening".

Rough estimates of the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan amount to $600 billion a year or thereabouts--significantly more than it would cost to fund all the healthcare reforms, stimulus expenditures, auto bailouts and other more traditional domestic programs over the next decade.

What ought the U.S. be doing in this regard? Can we continue to afford to build and re-build countries in the Middle East and at the same time care for our own citizens and economy here at home? The economics of deficit spending and the accumulating national debt seems to say NO.

What do you think?

specific planning with considering alternatives that provide the funding. It is high time the US Government be held to the same rules as corporate America or our very own households...one cannot spend what they do not have. If it isn't in the check book then one waits or chooses trade offs or a little of both providing visibility on funding what is being proposed/desired.

Curtail all efforts in the Middle East by 50 % by year end 2009.

Attack Medicare abuse beginning 4th quarter 2009...establish committee to establish action plan.

Attack pharmaceutical companies current sheltering by year end 2009. Allow no more than one year on patents for new medication.

Implement tort reform or elimination.

Establish insurance panel to address the ills of the industry with rules and regulations to follow by year end 2009.

Etc......etc.

There is no way anything remotely like the above, or what VK proposes because the political ramifications mean more to the incumbents than truly addressing/solving the problem. Without the politics there is no problem in existence that CANNOT BE SOLVED.

It starts with a government that wants to do what ever it takes to fix the problems.

And it does not matter what the party affiliation. When we turned companies around during my stint in Corporate America, I can't remember ever needing to know what the participants party affiliation was to get the job done.

Good thread VK.

btk

about military spending. The left seems to feel that too much is spent on military spending and not enough on social programs. Does anyone know what portion of military spending stays right here in the US economy? Do people consider the fact that the military employs god knows how many civilians, supports how many businesses contributing to our economy? What will happen if we cut defense spending buy say 50% Will welders building aircraft carriers switch employment and become nurses? Military spending not only defends us as a nation, but provides greatly to our economy and standard of living.

One of the initial mandates in the creation of our government was to provide for a national defense. I don't recall that it included social spending buy politicians. Government spending should be defined buy Constitutional mandate as to what a central governments responsibilities are, not buy the tax and spend ideals created buy politicians of the great depression money grab.

Originally Posted by gnu

...One of the initial mandates in the creation of our government was to provide for a national defense. I don't recall that it included social spending buy politicians. Government spending should be defined buy Constitutional mandate as to what a central governments responsibilities are, not buy the tax and spend ideals created buy politicians of the great depression money grab.

The Constitution is pretty silent on both military and social spending, other than the brief statements in the Preamble...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As it should be, the meaning of these words is left to considerable interpretation. Are the military actions begun in 2001 and continuing today in two Middle Eastern countries providing "for the common defence"? Is the current consideration of healthcare legislation "promoting the general welfare"? I think it could be argued that both are consistent with the Constitution. Neither is required by the Constitution, but neither is inconsistent with our fundamental law.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The Constitution is pretty silent on both military and social spending, other than the brief statements in the Preamble...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As it should be, the meaning of these words is left to considerable interpretation. Are the military actions begun in 2001 and continuing today in two Middle Eastern countries providing "for the common defence"? Is the current consideration of healthcare legislation "promoting the general welfare"? I think it could be argued that both are consistent with the Constitution. Neither is required by the Constitution, but neither is inconsistent with our fundamental law.

Well acceptable response as to the second of my statements. Thank you. But what is your response to the first part on defense spending?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

There's been much debate about the cost of the various healthcare reforms being considered and the effect they may have on the national debt. The latest "scoring" by the Government Budget Office that I've seen of the latest round of proposals would cost about $600 billion over a ten year period.

Just a thought on what other government expenditures might be cut in order to pay for this critically important domestic social program...what about the costs of continuing the wars in Iraq and now back in Afghanistan again?

We've had major deployments of our younger generation to that region of the world for almost a decade. More than 4,000 have been killed and almost 50,000 badly injured.

I have no problem discussing heath care reforms, costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, social spending, but I get upset when the deaths of our soldiers is used as a argument to reduce spending. These are different subject altogether. To use one to argue the other is wrong.

To loose the life of one person, soldier or civilian is tragic to our country, to their parents, siblings, children and friends. Whatever their position in life, be it sailor or sewer worker we grieve for their loss. To make military spending seem worse by counting numbers of soldiers dead and wounded is a disservice to their life and position.

If numbers of people dead is the reason for political spending look around here at home. 2-3 thousand children die each year from child abuse. 18 thousand disabled by near fatal physical and mental abuse, buy their own parents and guardians. Soldiers at least died serving their country, knowing what they signed up for, dieing for our rights and freedoms. Honor them, respect them, but don't reduce them to an argument for social change.

Their numbers have been small but their sacrifice immeasurable in perspective to their cost to society. A cost worth bearing.

Originally Posted by gnu

Well acceptable response as to the second of my statements. Thank you. But what is your response to the first part on defense spending?

I don't have a clue, although I'd guess that the vast majority of defense spending goes to companies here in the U.S. The effect of military spending seems to be the basis of the old saying I learned when I was in the Army regarding investing during a time of war. It went something like, "Buy on bullets, sell on bugles", meaning buy when the war starts and sell when the armistice is signed. The saying is a little counter-intuitive--most people get nervous about the markets when war is begun-- but the economy and defense contractors get a bump as long as we're at war.

Originally Posted by gnu

...If numbers of people dead is the reason for political spending look around here at home....

Good point. If government spending was geared towards saving lives, the healthcare legislation would have been slam-dunked a long time ago. I think I heard a statistic on TV within the last few days that 85,000 people died in the U.S. in 2008 alone because they couldn't get adequate healthcare in time to save their lives.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Good point. If government spending was geared towards saving lives, the healthcare legislation would have been slam-dunked a long time ago. I think I heard a statistic on TV within the last few days that 85,000 people died in the U.S. in 2008 alone because they couldn't get adequate healthcare in time to save their lives.

Because they didn't have health insurance or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I get a kick out of the debate on social programs versus military spending. Without our military, we wouldn't have a country to be "free" in. I never heard of any "social program" keeping citizens free.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

... Without our military, we wouldn't have a country to be "free" in. I never heard of any "social program" keeping citizens free.

I think we need both, Steve. But we need to spend carefully, always trying to get the best "bang for the buck". Unfortunately, our Congress puts together spending bills that are a conglomeration of the things asked for by the special interests, creating expensive and ineffective programs. On the foreign policy-military front, we just seem to throw money around the world like we had an endless supply. Seldom do we get a "return on our investment" foreign policy-wise, it seems. Heck, Congress asking for billions for weapons systems that the Pentagon doesn't even want is right at the top of the current news. Then there's Nancy Pelosi writing to the Pentagon recommending the puchase of five new expensive planes for the use of the House saying, "...not having any Grumman G-V's available for members for the Memorial Day holiday is unacceptable!"

Coincidentally, I have my niece and her husband visiting right now. They are both newly-minted Phd's on their way to their first college tenure assignments in California (I'm in Michigan as I write this). They are both true experts in the politics and anthropology of Africa. When I commented on how effective the Bush anti-AIDs program seemed to be in Africa, my niece politely disagreed.

She commented that, "if you want to count flying a bunch of young staffers into Uganda with piles of money to throw around for no particular purpose a success, go ahead". She then related several examples of the medical and social experts, who knew the situation in the Ugandan society, asking for money for condoms and sex education purposes being turned down by the U.S. reps, who demanded that the money be spent in "sex abstinence" programs. Of course, there was almost nobody except the U.S. junior g-men who thought that abstinence would work in a country where marraige wasn't important and men commonly had multiple sexual partners. That didn't stop the U.S. reps from simply "throwing money around" to anyone who would take it if they agreed to develop or conduct abstinence programs. Most of the money went to known corrupt individuals who "took the money and ran". Uganda has made tremendous progress in AIDs treatment and prevention, but they've done it with private money from donors in the U.S. and elsewhere who were willing to fund the programs that the locals knew would work. The Bush administration takes the credit, and that's OK with me. But I certainly had my eyes opened by two people who lived there and observed what was happening for almost two years.

Like I said, we often don't get much of a bang for the buck. I don't think I need to go into the thousands of examples of waste and corruption in spending U.S. taxpayer's dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're all a matter of the public record in the GAO Inspector General's annual audits.

Originally Posted by billethkid

specific planning with considering alternatives that provide the funding. It is high time the US Government be held to the same rules as corporate America or our very own households...one cannot spend what they do not have. If it isn't in the check book then one waits or chooses trade offs or a little of both providing visibility on funding what is being proposed/desired.

Curtail all efforts in the Middle East by 50 % by year end 2009.

Attack Medicare abuse beginning 4th quarter 2009...establish committee to establish action plan.

Attack pharmaceutical companies current sheltering by year end 2009. Allow no more than one year on patents for new medication.

Implement tort reform or elimination.

Establish insurance panel to address the ills of the industry with rules and regulations to follow by year end 2009.

Etc......etc.

There is no way anything remotely like the above, or what VK proposes because the political ramifications mean more to the incumbents than truly addressing/solving the problem. Without the politics there is no problem in existence that CANNOT BE SOLVED.

It starts with a government that wants to do what ever it takes to fix the problems.

And it does not matter what the party affiliation. When we turned companies around during my stint in Corporate America, I can't remember ever needing to know what the participants party affiliation was to get the job done.

Good thread VK.

btk

The reason none of this will never happen is beacause congress panders to the money, the lobbyists and NOT the voting public.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I think we need both, Steve. But we need to spend carefully, always trying to get the best "bang for the buck". Unfortunately, our Congress puts together spending bills that are a conglomeration of the things asked for by the special interests, creating expensive and ineffective programs. On the foreign policy-military front, we just seem to throw money around the world like we had an endless supply. Seldom do we get a "return on our investment" foreign policy-wise, it seems.

Coincidentally, I have my niece and her husband visiting right now. They are both newly-minted Phd's on their way to their first college tenure assignments in California (I'm in Michigan as I write this). They are both true experts in the politics and anthropology of Africa. When I commented on how effective the Bush anti-AIDs program seemed to be in Africa, my niece politely disagreed.

She commented that, "if you want to count flying a bunch of young staffers into Uganda with piles of money to throw around for no particular purpose a success, go ahead". She then related several examples of the medical and social experts, who knew the situation in the Ugandan society, asking for money for condoms and sex education purposes being turned down by the U.S. reps, who demanded that the money be spent in "sex abstinence" programs. Of course, there was almost nobody except the U.S. junior g-men who thought that abstinence would work in a country where marraige wasn't important and men commonly had multiple sexual partners. That didn't stop the U.S. reps from simply "throwing money around" to anyone who would take it if they agreed to develop or conduct abstinence programs. Most of the money went to known corrupt individuals who "took the money and ran". Uganda has made tremendous progress in AIDs treatment and prevention, but they've done it with private money from donors in the U.S. and elsewhere who were willing to fund the programs that the locals knew would work. The Bush administration takes the credit, and that's OK with me. But I certainly had my eyes opened by two people who lived there and observed what was happening for almost two years.

Like I said, we often don't get much of a bang for the buck. I don't think I need to go into the thousands of examples of waste and corruption in spending U.S. taxpayer's dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're all a matter of the public record in the GAO Inspector General's annual audits.

We rarely get our money's worth whenever the government tries to be social engineer, in the US or anywhere else. Usually, the money is thrown around like water on a fire, and not with any efficiency. The examples abound on government not being a good "nanny" any time it's tried. So, why does the government keep trying? I haven't heard anyone name any domestic social program that was or is federally funded/managed that isn't ripe with fraud, procurement waste, and general mismanagement. Yet, rather than ever get any of those programs fixed and put under better fiscal management, we just blunder into another and another.

I guess in time the government might someday manage a social program in a fiscal and operationally efficient manner. After all, even a blind squirrel can eventually finds a nut.....

And as far as African AIDS is concerned or any other offshore problem, whatever the US does outside as humanitarian aid, we do it by borrowing money to help others. If other programs than what the US funds are desired, then where are the Europeans and Asians? They have the money to lend to the US, so they must have sufficient capital to take over some of the aid programs where the US used to be the sole world provider. There's a lot of sources of money other than expecting Uncle Sam to take out a loan to give it to others. However, I don't hear anybody complaining that the Europeans or Asians didn't do this or that. The US is again a target of convenience.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I don't have a clue, although I'd guess that the vast majority of defense spending goes to companies here in the U.S. The effect of military spending seems to be the basis of the old saying I learned when I was in the Army regarding investing during a time of war. It went something like, "Buy on bullets, sell on bugles", meaning buy when the war starts and sell when the armistice is signed. The saying is a little counter-intuitive--most people get nervous about the markets when war is begun-- but the economy and defense contractors get a bump as long as we're at war.

Ronald Reagan bought a strong military and caused the demise of the Soviet Union and brought down the Berlin wall. Bill Clinton "sold" when the bugles sounded and left us so short handed militarily than it took months to muster the men and material to go to Iraq. Whether or not one approved of the Iraq war the point was seen that having a weak military was not good for the countries defense. Luckily it was our choice of timing the start of the war allowing us to build a maximum manpower and technological assault. What fools we be to ever let our position of strength down, not knowing at what point some despot or nutcase will need to be challenged.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Good point. If government spending was geared towards saving lives, the healthcare legislation would have been slam-dunked a long time ago. I think I heard a statistic on TV within the last few days that 85,000 people died in the U.S. in 2008 alone because they couldn't get adequate healthcare in time to save their lives.

I asked once before and will again for a source for the 85000 figure ????/

Not that I dont believe you but that is about 1/2 million in 6 months and close to a million per year !!!

The report I heard--on CNN I believe--was 85,000 deaths in a year, not a month.