OT Bush calls Lebanon A new front for global war on terror

[M. Bréqs]

...The family of every American citizen who dies while waiting for an operation to repair a heart valve because can't afford private medical insurance, can thank a Canadian or European pacifist for shit state of American social programs.

Now there's an interesting point. However, I'm not sure it's as simple as that. After all, pretty much all of the US's military spending goes into US companies. They pay workers, who pay taxes, buy goods and services from fellow americans, etc. Same for service personnel, the money stays in the US and keeps the ecconomy moving.

As was pointed out, Boeing has done very well out of it. They could then pile this money into making civilian aircraft, which they sold to just about every airline in the world.

Add to that the revinue from US arms sales to other countries, NATO, other allies (iraq- sorry, had to say it), etc. I can't remember what we paid the US for our trident nukes, but it was a fair few billion. And was money going directly from our ecconomy into the US's.

It's alway's been said that war is good for the ecconomy, so I don't think you can really lay the blame for underprivaliged US citizens on Europe.

Phew, for a second there, I thought my country was responsable for even more crap then I give it credit for.

Well, if what you say is true, then why do the Coalition Opposed to Arms Trade (COAT), Food Not Bombs, and the Ploughshares Movement, three quite respected anti-defence industry lobbies, feel that money spent on defence is better spent on social programs (or food in the case of Food Not Bombs)?

It seems you're argueing that Defence spending doesn't affect the provision of social services to Americans because it contributes to the economy... But the economic circulation doesn't seem to touch on Health Care, does it?

The three instutions above seem to disagree with you. I'm not engaging in an Ad Hominem attack, I am curious how you would refute their positions.

[subterFUSE]

M Breqs....


I always agree with you... but, as rude as it may be, I do feel compelled to point out that the proper spelling is defenSe.



I know.... so lame to correct spelling. I just can't help it.

[rtopia]

One of the reasons that the word socialism is so vilified in this country, is because it is a viable means of self defense against capital, thus capital has done its best to turn people away from the ideas.

...so you're saying it's villification has nothing to do with the fact that I get 1/3 of my income confiscated in the name of "the collective good" and not seing it do any good for the collective?

(cause it sure as fuck isn't doing anything for me)

Capital didn't turn me away from socialist ideas.
Socialism "not working" is what turned me away.

And of course, our sense of our own history is very short and distorted. People enjoy a 40 hour work week, overtime pay, vacation, health benefits because of socialists who helped organize unions.

not entirely true...

the trend of adding health benefits as a form of compensation began during the second world war in reaction to government mandated wage freezes.

it was the only way a company could offer the best people "something more" and not break the law.

If big corporations had their way, we would all be sweat shop laborers working for a few dollars a day.

then it's a good thing we're not forced at gunpoint to work for someone isn't it?

This is a cliche...

They have not stopped trying and they have effectively crippled the union movement

and this has nothing to do with the fact that the union idea no longer appeals a majority of people coming into the workforce?

and the U.S. worker is being squeezed.

ugh...
yes - we're all fucking helpless "somebody save us"

Good luck man - you win.

Go ahead and wait for the politcal pendulum to swing far enough to see your ideas come around and I'll see you in the soup line.

- r

ps. I'll probably be the guy paying for everybody elses soup

[subterFUSE]

Go ahead and wait for the politcal pendulum to swing far enough to see your ideas come around and I'll see you in the soup line.

[M. Bréqs]

M Breqs....


I always agree with you... but, as rude as it may be, I do feel compelled to point out that the proper spelling is defenSe.



I know.... so lame to correct spelling. I just can't help it.

Canadians always spell it that way...
My sources on this:

http://www.forces.gc.ca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department ... al_Defence
http://www.luther.ca/~dave7cnv/cdnspelling/cdnspeD.html

Now if there is one thing I can fault the Americans for ITS THEIR EVIL IMPERIALIST SPELLING AGENDA!!!

[subterFUSE]

Hehe.

Go eat some Kraft Dinner, Canadian.

[Machinesworking]

Just wanted to say I grew up on welfare for about ten years of my life. The day my mom got her degree and real estate license, when she felt she didn't have to deal with welfare was one of the happiest days I had seen her have.

People aren't all born into good happy poor families in areas of America with enough work etc. Families have drug problems, poverty due to learning disabilities, poverty due to just being poor. Depression due to begging to get a job cleaning some rich bitches toilet, and being turned down for reasons beyond your control etc.

You think people will wise up and all become nice upstanding citizens because you take their safety net? Eliminate welfare, and watch crime go through the roof, period.
One of the basic reasons marx came up with socialism was because he thought Capitalism led back to a feudal state where the classes became almost as hard to cross as the times when it was a right of birth. My take given a chance to implement it would be a democratic socialism with a capitalist push economically, it's the best of all worlds. Places like Sweden and the Netherlands have this, America could, but we are so trained to treat our poor with disrespect, hell? even our poor hate themselves? it's sad really. It's as if we want a ruling class?
Mbreqs, I've said you seemed like a social darwinist to me in the past, and it still holds true. I'm not saying that as an insult, just an observation. the whole concept that might makes right. That the cream rises to the top.
The only thing that saddens me, is growing up dirt poor, I've seen a lot of kids with no chance, zero. I was lucky in that my parents, though unconventional, were intelligent. I had a chance, plenty do not, period.
We Americans pay less than the rest of the world does in taxes, ( save a few oil rich burbs), yet the argument here is that the US had to spend money on the military to fight communism instead of health care??? Welfare is a burdon? BS man total BS!
I don't have time to get into that right now, but realize that this is about real human beings. I meet all kinds of wealthy republicans who believe they have a divine right to more than the 'common' man, and after a few conversations with them you realize that they are brainless idiots with only the luck to be born rich. There is a limit to the resources, and when you can't see the need for a safety net for the poor, but are OK with the rich getting much more than a safety net based simply on birth..... Walk the plank!

[andydes]

...The family of every American citizen who dies while waiting for an operation to repair a heart valve because can't afford private medical insurance, can thank a Canadian or European pacifist for shit state of American social programs.

Now there's an interesting point. However, I'm not sure it's as simple as that. After all, pretty much all of the US's military spending goes into US companies. They pay workers, who pay taxes, buy goods and services from fellow americans, etc. Same for service personnel, the money stays in the US and keeps the ecconomy moving.

As was pointed out, Boeing has done very well out of it. They could then pile this money into making civilian aircraft, which they sold to just about every airline in the world.

Add to that the revinue from US arms sales to other countries, NATO, other allies (iraq- sorry, had to say it), etc. I can't remember what we paid the US for our trident nukes, but it was a fair few billion. And was money going directly from our ecconomy into the US's.

It's alway's been said that war is good for the ecconomy, so I don't think you can really lay the blame for underprivaliged US citizens on Europe.

Phew, for a second there, I thought my country was responsable for even more crap then I give it credit for.

Well, if what you say is true, then why do the Coalition Opposed to Arms Trade (COAT), Food Not Bombs, and the Ploughshares Movement, three quite respected anti-defence industry lobbies, feel that money spent on defence is better spent on social programs (or food in the case of Food Not Bombs)?

It seems you're argueing that Defence spending doesn't affect the provision of social services to Americans because it contributes to the economy... But the economic circulation doesn't seem to touch on Health Care, does it?

The three instutions above seem to disagree with you. I'm not engaging in an Ad Hominem attack, I am curious how you would refute their positions.

Indead, a country only has finite resources to spend it's buget on. And yes, more of this money could go on social schemes. I was just pointing out that this money doesn't disappear into a black hole as such. The arms industry is a major contributer to the US ecconomy (and the UK's, mind you), so a direct comparison between military spending between countries doesn't necessarly work.

Anyway, I'm on shakey ground here, as I'm not an ecconomist. Ss I'll leave this point before I say something stupid (maybe too late).

Besides, now I have found a reason to hate america. Hollywood's remade The Wicker Man. With Nicholas Cage, no less. How dare they, captalist pigs!

[subterFUSE]

Eliminate welfare, and watch crime go through the roof, period.

This is false.


Bill Clinton (a moderate) signed some of the biggest welfare reforms into law during his presidency, despite serious protests from the left wing.

Today, as a result, the numbers of people who have been forced to work and subsequnetly brought themselves out of poverty is much higher.

[ethios4]

Here's an interesting story about welfare...

My mom has worked from the time she was 13 until 1996 when she was too sick to work anymore because of serious medical problems caused by ruptured breast implants (she got them during the time when Dow Corning, and other companies, where telling everyone they were perfectly safe even though they knew otherwise). She resumed work in 2001 because she could not stand not being productive, but had to take off in 2002 so she could care of her dying father. She resumed work from 2003-2005 despite being plagued by health problems related to the ruptured implants. Right after Christmas 2005 she completely lost all hearing in both ears because her inner ears were completely destroyed, causing deafness and near-constant extreme vertigo. Her teeth are mostly cumbled because of vomiting constantly for about 8 months, lupus is destroying her body, she has heart and brain damage from potassium loss caused by the vomiting, a fractured spine because the silicone in her body is leaching calcium from her bones, and now a serious addiction to pain medication after being in sever pain for thge last 10 years. She is not elligble for Social Security/Disability/Medicare because she took off in 2002 to care for her father. She has no insurance because she was fired from her job when she lost partial hearing in 2005, and all her money since has gone to health care. So a person who has spent most of her life caring for others and paying taxes in the nursing profession is herself denied health care because of the year she took off.

Contrast this with a 35-year old woman I know who is on welfare, gets medicare, teaches her 14-year old son that polyamorous relationships are just fine, has psychedelic orgy parties where her 2 kids get to see her friends fuck her with vegetables while they are all on mushrooms, takes her kid to the dentist for legitimate dental work, then takes the medicare refund check and uses it to buy a strap-on dildo!

Not an entirely rational comparison there, but the fact that such a situation exists makes me sick! How can a person who has worked her whole life not be elligble for any kind of assistance, while a person who avoids work like the plague gets all kinds of assistance?!?

The situation with my mom is all the evidence I need that some sort of social net is needed for people to fall back on....she has done everything she reasonably could her whole life to prevent being in a situation like this, yet a series of improbable and unfortunate events has led her to one of the worst places imaginable, with no safety net to catch her.

[elemental]

Thats fucked up to say the least.

[subterFUSE]

Yes, Ethios.


That is a terrible situation, and inexcusible on the part of the younger and more irresponsible person for subjecting children to such acts.

At one time, my parents qualified for welfare.... although they chose not to get it.


I wasn't really implying that welfare should be eliminated.... merely pointing out that the arguments that welfare reductions result in more crime, and more poverty are not necessarily true. In fact, the evidence contradicts this... if the Clinton welfare reforms are any indication.

[dj superflat]

i love that this thread has outlasted the conflict that started it (not that the conflict in lebanon has been resolved, but the cease-fire is in place, even if only tentatively).

[subterFUSE]

Good point, flat.

[mikemc]

that is really tough.

Someone I know worked at a school where there was a part time handyman/gardener who was very old-- like pushing 80. He was old enough to collect social security. However, he could not, because he had never applied for it. He had never applied for it, because he was hospitalized for a psychiatric condition in a time when long term hospitalization was the way they did things, and that time was *before* social security had been created.

So, he was older than the social security system but because of years--- it was decades, apparently, he outlived several doctors-- in the hospital (where, incidentally, he worked at various tasks: this is where he learned gardening) had never been enrolled in it. To be eligible to collect benefits, he needed to work some number of years.

So, he was basically hoping to stay generally healthy long enough so he could retire and collect social security before he died. He really was afflicted, and I can't help but wonder if whoever was supposed to be setting him up with whatever social services had done the right thing. He did live long enough to complete his years of labor, but died not too long after of a liver disease.