After Ike: Can Charlottesville love both peace and war?

The assertions in this article are ridiculous. The direct comparison of war to rape is an insult to the men and women who have given their lives to stop aggression around the world. Human beings have predatory tendencies and are no different than a lion defending its pride battles must be fought. Anyone who believes that if we just laid down our weapons peace would rain down from the sky is an idiot.

The war /money relationship does need to be reconfigured, but the defense industry keeps us safe from aggressors. America is a country that has assets worth protecting.

Your ignorance of world events and history is astounding.

War, the worst crime imaginable, must not be compared with rape, yet humans are just as stupid and vicious as lions and there's nothing that can be done about that? People made these incoherent arguments in defense of slavery, dueling, and all sorts of barbarisms we've largely put behind us. And they were made against strawmen, as here. Objecting to a global imperial presence that costs seven times as much as the next highest spender on earth is not necessarily a call to eliminate the military. What would you say to reducing the US military to, say, three times the size of China's?

If anyone is confused, here, it would appear to be David Swanson, who attempts to apply facially simple semantics to what are often very complex moral and practical choices occurring within dynamic circumstances. I'll just bet one of Dave's favorite conundrums is something on the order of, "If God is all powerful, can He create a stone so heavy that even He can't lift it?" Whoa. That's profound, man.

"It's a funny thing about peace and war: you really do have to choose between them" writes Dave. And I suppose that if I am shown 2 doors -one labeled "peace," the other, "war," then I would choose the "peace door." But suppose the peace door opens into a world of slavery and oppression, whereas the war door opens into a fight for my life (or yours, Dave). NOW which door do I want?

Wait wait, Dave! I know what you're going to say, just as assuredly as you issue blanket generalities which are both true, and meaningless. You're going to say that by nature, slavery and oppression are not "peaceful," because they involve some kind of violence against the human spirit. I'll buy that. So let's say that the slavery and oppression in this case takes the form of being required to work a grueling 60 hour week in a community where the penalty for robbing a bank is 10 years in prison. I'm a slave to a job I hate and I live in a place where I will be oppressed if I step out of line. How very odd - that sounds like a place where you need to work to make ends meet and there are penalties for doing bad things. Meanwhile, the fight for my life (the thing behind the "war door") involves defending myself from someone who's trying to kill me.

I won't torture the subject anymore - the point is that choices which are simple and obvious in theory often boil down into something else in actual life. You will understand, I hope, that I am nervous about applying my preferred and ideal choice in theory to every real life situation that confronts me.

And I'm also nervous about people who argue that MY only choices are the ones that THEY give me; that THEIR perception of the fundamental challenges of civilized people are the correct understanding of our history and of our nature. The last person to get away with this, to my knowledge, was a fellow who shared his Cool-Aid with the willing adherents to his view. Me? I'll take a martini, thank you very much.

And that brings us to MIC50, the details of which may be found at the warisacrime.org web site. Here, we read such breathless questions as,

"Did you know that redirecting a fraction of our military spending to education, green energy, healthcare, and tax cuts would create a job for every unemployed or underemployed person in the country (including those losing war industry jobs during this conversion)?"

This statement, which certainly must be directed at those who are willing to let others do their thinking for them, is, again, an example of some generally feasible and logically appealing notion which rings true as a nice idea, but which is easily parsed into the nonsense of which it is comprised.

Hey, Dave, let me ask you: "How BIG a fraction?" 1/10th? 1/2? 7/8ths? Don't we kinda need to KNOW that before we go too much further? And what happens to the people whose jobs are terminated because the funding was moved elsewhere? Will you magically transport them to a wind farm? Or do they just wait for a call? And, hey Dave! "Exactly WHICH education programs, which "green" initiatives, what healthcare programs, and WHOSE taxes?" And, while we're at it, what kind of jobs, Dave? Got all that mapped out for us?

What we have here, I think, is some appealing ideas, expressed in superficial logic, dressed up in intellectual garb, and aimed at the gullible public.

Should be a great conference.

Good article.

I agree that first off all it is important to understand that war starts first in our support for the policies of our leaders who wage it. Thus, it is important for us to look as individuals inside ourselves. We often are led to believe many myths that are used to justify wars, one of which is the myth of unchanging human nature.

The economic arguments you raise are most important: I stand with President Eisenhower in comparing war to theft:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

As you point out, today vast sums are spent, and often wasted by a military-industrial-congressional complex that has grown far beyond President Eisenhower's worst nightmare. More than 1/2 of every tax dollar we each pay, by some estimates, is spent by a military that is spending as much or more than the rest of the world's militaries combined. What threat to our country can possibly justify that scale of spending? Or is it really more about fraud and theft?

I am sure the US Army's former Chief Procurement officer will be insightful, and I understand she will be speaking at the upcoming conference.

Hey Old Timer, amen, brother or sister

Hell we could solve a lot of the problems of this country: famine, health care, infrastructure repair, debt, etc., with the trillions the Pentagon looses! How is it they can loose more than their budget? Something stinks at the Pentagon, and it sure isn't JET FUEL!

"I get tired of saying, that defense is to be made an excuse for wasting dollars, I don't thing we should pay one cent for defense than we have to." - Dwight D. Eisenhower - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A

David,

I am pretty much a libertarian, which is why I get really bothered by the GOP these days more than even the DNC. The GOP talks about shrinking government, but they support this kind of big government nonsense, just like you see with Bill Marshall. They are flaming hypocrites.

Its fair to say that the dollars that go into military spending means that those are dollars not going into other sectors of our economy. If its a job we feel the government needs to do, especially on the long term, then government should be doing it. You don't shrink government by handing the job over to a private entity.

In this case, its even worse with the DoD, because unlike infrastructure building, those who can do the jobs were already trained and paid for by the tax payer, and now you limit competition for those jobs. Those jobs also cluster in certain areas, whereas infrastructure jobs spread out.

Businesses really shouldn't be in the business of doing business for government. But with the rest of the population sucked dry of any gainful employment, who are they going to sell to?

Isn't it funny that those who preach about the government being too big and the need to get government out of our lives create the very environment to make that happen?

I appreciate the tease, Dave, and must confess that my most ardent admirers are measured in the ones.

That said, your referral to your own undocumented material is hardly any credible answer to the questions I posed, above. Ignoring the numbers you cite, I take from it that we should have a kind of, "Gee-whiz, look what we COULD have done with all that money!" I don't know, but I rather suspect that no matter what goals or purposes of government expenditures, we will always find, later on, that there was a better way. As to the cost of defense and our escapades on foreign soil, no one has yet proffered any credible theory of the outcomes had we NOT done so.

You have cited (but not documented) some substantial numbers, but the numbers themselves are not really the point. More to the point are your assertions, such as this:

" I just spotted an easy way to create 29 million jobs, one for every unemployed or underemployed U.S. worker.

"No, I'm not about to say 'Just raise taxes on gazillionaires and hire people to build stuff.' I'm all in favor of that, for lots of reasons, including the political corruption created by a concentration of wealth. We might have to disempower gazillionaires before we can enact any sensible policies, including the one I'm about to propose, but it can itself be done without raising a dime in revenue. This means that the President, who has broad, albeit unconstitutional, powers to move funding around from one program to another could do this himself. Or Congress could.'

The above passage suggests, literally, that you are in favor of raising taxes on gazillionaires, "for lots of reasons including . . . political corruption. . .". But I am sure you really don't like political corruption. What you mean is that taking money from the rich will get rid of corruption. And I suppose we should draw from this that concentrating the wealth somewhere else will somehow NOT contribute to corruption at its new location.

Or, maybe you mean that "spreading the wealth" among ordinary folks like me, and taking it away from people like Donald Trump, is what will cure corruption; at least as it might arise from having too much money in one place. Presumably, intellectual corruption would still be protected, because some people count on that to make a living, you know.

But what the heck, Dave, let's get down to brass tacks, here. Exactly how much money is too much money? I think the President came up with $250,000 as a point at which the tax noose begins to tighten up a little bit. Does that number work for you? You often write about what "we" could do, when it comes to national policy and priorities. So who is counted among the "we" who determine when my treasure should be procured for redistribution? I'll bet YOU'RE on the committee, aren't you, Dave?

Point being, that when your material is stripped clean of the the cited studies and numbers (none of which themselves are documented) all we have left is what we might do, what we could do, what can be done, and so on. All figments of an imagination. And when you say, "we" I'm not at all sure who you are talking about; you, certainly - but who else? And for all those things you believe could or can be done, you have offered nothing about HOW, exactly, to do so.

Mr. Swanson, in your first comment you appear to be confusing the city council with the school board. Two separate entities. Whatever oath the city council takes has no bearing on the school board. The school board has nothing to do with fixing potholes.

What I don't understand is why didn't you use an analogy of anti-semitism and Nazi Germany? Why not compare the school board member to a Nazi? You've compared him to a rapist and someone who supports slavery. What logical reason do you have to not compare him to a Nazi? Or Pol Pot?

JS.

I believe Mr Swanson is basing some of his opinions on a study from the 90's that was revised in 2004-7?.
It basically said 1 billion diverted from defense to other areas would produce better employment results.

Of course diverting to education was the winner by far(hummm) and diverting the money to tax cuts was the worst scenerio. One thing that stands out (I believe) in his opinion is that higher paying would be created by diverting to other areas. If memory serves me correctly higher paying jobs were created by putting money into defense because scientists and engineers are in higher demand.

If I have time I will look for the study and post. There was also one done by CBO that negates this study.

To jeeze: I really don't care what study Dave is talking about. I will stipulate that they all say exactly what he reports, even if they don't. But the clear evidence that money might be better spent elsewhere should come as no surprise to anyone, has produced no practical road map for solutions and hardly is a basis for disempowering people. I am reminded of Steve Martin's comedy routine about "How to Be a Millionaire, and not Pay any Taxes." It opened with this instruction: "First, get a million dollars."

My opinion is that Dave's use of the data is intellectually corrupt. I (or anyone) can certainly cite whatever evidence I want to support a view that a situation should be different than it is. This country has a problem with obesity, and I have the data to prove it! And here, all this time we could have been spending money on promoting exercise and healthy diet - oh, woe is me! What do we do about it? Well, first of all, "we" have to disempower people with too much money.

There! That feels better!

old timer// what part of the "defense/money should be reconfigured" did you not understand.

I am all for downsizing the military at this juncture but may be willing to upsize it if an enemy emerges to attack us or an ally.

I am all for smaller government and ending waste at the pentagon but I have read enough of world history to know that evil exists and that we need to be ready for it because it is obvious that people like you will simply bend over and take it and say "thank you sir may I have another"

This, J, is the way that Dave operates, evidently. And, as seems to be typical as well, he stumbles. Here is what he wrote about Ned's remark:

". . . in a statement that's anything but out of the ordinary. . ."

What that phrase means, literally, is that Ned's comment was "ordinary." That is, if it is ANYTHING BUT out of the ordinary, it is therefore "ordinary." I'm not sure why an ordinary comment would justify any discussion, so I can only assume that Dave meant the statement was actually worth the rhetoric which followed.

I think I "get it" about Ned's discomfort with endorsement of the events associated with the International Day of Peace, and I admire him for being honest about his feelings. His anxiety about the nature of the events should not be confused with his personal preference of peace and non-violence.

But leave it to good old Dave to use Ned's remark to chum the waters for his conference.

"I CAN favor peace and go to war - as indeed, many millions have done, so as to secure the peace."

So, JS, how is that working out for you? Can you cite me one example where war begat peace? Unless, of course, you are thinking of the kind of peace that comes from death to a whole population.

Your remarks remind me of my favorite slogan from the Vietnam era: "Fighting for Peace is like F***ing for Chastity."

I think it goes without saying that war begets more war, and we have volumes of historical documentation to that fact, including the Holy Bible!!

So the question before us is really, can peace beget peace? Unfortunately, our nation's history has been defined as chapters between wars; wars have been the bookends separating eras and how each generation has come to define itself. What a sad commentary on the USAmerican experience.

I am reminded of a certain Art History professor long ago who showed us slides of artifacts from both the Mycenaeans and the Minoans. The Mycenaeans' artifacts were mostly weaponry while the Minoans were mostly utilitarian objects and art for art's sake. The historical conclusion was that the Mycenaeans were a warlike people while the Minoans were a peace-loving people. I have to wonder what word future civilizations will use to describe us as they unearth the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that we have spent our time and treasure creating, and perhaps ultimately burying ourselves with.

All that aside, the immediate question at hand that Swanson seems to be asking and that hopefully the MIC50 conference will address is, how much is enough? Is half our operational budget enough for our defense? Should it be 70% or maybe some think it should be 100%. Would that do it? Would we then be safe?

I don't know about others, but I would prefer my share of the common defense dollars be spent protecting the roof over my head from foreclosure, or protecting my body from disease, or protecting my food supply, air and water from poisons. If the "common defense" that we all are guaranteed and have all paid for does not address the most basic human protections, then what in the world do we need with it in the first place?

I guess it boils down to who or what the greatest threat is. So why don't we all take a walk around our towns and ask ourselves if the boarded-up city blocks of homes and stores are the result of mideast terrorist activity or the acts of any foreign power. Observe the lines at unemployment offices, food banks and health clinics and let us ask ourselves if those result from any foreign threat. Likewise, the children with asthma and other afflictions attributed to environmental degradation.

So the question in the end is: how much of the money allocated to the military must be moved to protecting basic human needs in order to truly protect our population? I anticipate a lively discussion of this question at MIC50 and hope all speaking here will participate!

Exactly! And a homeless, jobless, diseased, uneducated, poor and hungry population is indeed weak!
Therefore.....???

Exactly! And a homeless, jobless, diseased, uneducated, poor and hungry population is indeed weak!
Therefore.....???

If that is how you percieve the United States then you are a sad individual.
Barbara

The United states is the one country on earth where food is plentiful, medicine and medical treatment is available and everybody can find somewhere to go to get out of the rain.

Just because it isn't the home with the white picket fence doesn't mean you are not better off than every other country on the planet.

peace must be earned.That means a strong defense.

Hey BM; I mean Bill: you say "I am all for downsizing the military at this juncture but may be willing to upsize it if an enemy emerges to attack us or an ally."

Would you consider a bunch of shameless banksters emerging to rob people of their homes an enemy worth upsizing the DOMESTIC defense to combat? How about predatory insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies who have a license to price healthcare out of the reach of millions? Are they an enemy worth upsizing the DOMESTIC defense for?

And what about the Halliburtons and Bechtels whose cronyism with the "deciders" have landed no-bid contracts in the billion$, and likely even wrote their own contracts; are they an enemy worth upsizing the DOMESTIC defense for?

So you have "read enough of world history to know that evil exists," have you? Have you read enough to know that often evil exists within? Have you heard of inside jobs? Are inside players equally guilty in your book,
and equally worthy of defense spending, albeit DOMESTIC spending?

Tell me true, Bill, if you knew for a fact that the US Treasury had been robbed by people like a sitting VP or Sec of the Treasury, or that elections had fraudulently been decided by a sitting Supreme Court, would it be obvious to people like me 'that people like you will simply bend over and take it and say "thank you sir may I have another"?'

Well, JS, ain't we having fun?!

1. Think nothing of it; happy to oblige you the opportunity to examine my passions!

2. I am truly sorry to hear that you were so often the target of bullies, and having never had that experience myself, I can only ask the question my mother would ask me following a catfight with my sister, which is, "what did you do to evoke such treatment?" And that is the same question I have to ask my country when they feel they have to respond to, say, a "terrorist" attack. Like, did you ever do a dirty deed to these people, or use them? or misuse them? or take your marbles and go inside when things didn't go your way?

Of course I can't presume to know what, if anything, you may have done to taunt these fellows. Maybe you were just good looking and all the girls liked you and they were jealous.

Maybe, if you were a good LIBERAL (gasp!) you might've asked yourself if perhaps there was something going on with these guys at home that you didn't know about, and perhaps you could've befriended them without going through the torture. Maybe they just needed a friend, eh?

3. Well, I do believe it is a relevant question to ask why our history must be defined in chapters of war. There is such a thing as cause and effect, and I am sure someone as articulate as you knows full well that often the causes for going into war are not legitimate, and in many cases serve to enrich war profiteers and/or to steal a people's resources. I'm very glad slavery is in our past & regret it was ever a part of our being, but again, there were economic issues driving the abolitionists as much as any sense of morality was. And regarding Gaddafi, well, it appears to be yet another case of a US-installed dictator who once served US purposes, but is no longer useful. Let us not be naive.

4. Can I cite you an example of when peace begat peace? Of course not. After thousands of years of wars, we have never given peace a chance. All we are saying...is thousands of years of war have failed to produce peace. You think we might try something else??! And to that point, isn't it reasonable to assume that the country who is the most heavily armed might be the one to test the premise of laying down one's arms? You certainly don't expect the weakest to have the courage to lay down their arms first, do you? Have you not noticed, and could you possibly argue against the point that it is when animals, people, or countries feel threatened, that that is when they build up their defenses. If you don't know that, you haven't seen as many rattlesnakes as I have.

Take the recent example of Kim Jong Il being on the verge of discarding hopes of nukes under Clinton's charm, but then going at it with a vengeance after Bush went around calling names "axis of evil" and issuing threats. My God, the most natural response to a threat is to build up your arms. And I bet you're a gun-toter, JS. And if you are, I want to tell you something: it is not the brave who go around town toting arms; it is the fearful!

5. Regarding making the cost of war too much for the enemy: we are the enemy, JS. It is US invading other countries. We are the aggressors. And the cost of war is too much for us; that is what I am saying; that is what Swanson is saying; that is what this whole conference is about. The cost of these wars are gutting us. Would you spend your last dollar on a bullet or milk for the baby? That is the question before us.

As for your pre-emptive opinion about this conference, or the shortcomings of Dave's essay & web site, if you're so smart, why don't you understand that this is but an invitation for people like you to add to the conversation? Any misbegotten notion you have that Dave or anyone else seeks to rob the rich and give to the poor is well, misbegotten. We would just like to rid the rich of their misbegotten wealth; ie: that they stole from the labors of ordinary working people like you and me. And it is a fact, JS, that when at least 50% of the wealth of nation is in the hands of a mere 1%, it is a dangerous situation indeed. An economy that top-heavy cannot stand; more important, this tiny fraction usurps the power to wage wars, for example, and divert our earnings to their own self-serving purposes; not to mention usurping the power of our military. That is not equality. That is not rule by WE THE PEOPLE! I bet you like that term. Guess what, Liberals do too. We all have a Libertarian streak.

Well, you get back to your trains and I'll get back to my crayolas.

Ah, Barbara, you're back! And yes, I'm enjoying the exchange. Let me see if I can address some of your well formatted questions and considerations.

#1. Likewise, I'm sure.

#2. I suspected I would get the question about what I did to provoke the attack of a bully. It is scarcely within the realm of an 8 year old to challenge the dominion of a 12 year old. What I did was simply to present a target. I was invited to come play in the fenced in garden area of the bully and of course, I happily did so. With the results I have previously described. But you, Barbara, may nonetheless harbor the notion that I was the cause of that effect. Literally, of course, I WAS; for had I not been there at the time, it might not have happened. But, what the heck, I'll concede that it was all my fault. As to the attack of later years, the person who assaulted me was someone I barely knew. But again, OK, it was all my fault, somehow. Which still leaves me with the question of whether I defend myself, or submit. Perhaps you would find it more satisfying that I simply submit to my attackers. I trust you will have the same solicitude for anyone who attacks and beats you. After all, surely, Barbara, it was something you did.

Your examination of my personal challenge portrays a broader notion that the United States has been the essential cause of the attacks we suffered 10 years ago; or otherwise of a strong cynicism held with respect to our motives and intentions. I do agree that we certainly could have had a more gentle touch and greater appreciation of cultures which differ from our own. In fact, I wrote a rather blistering letter to the head of the NFL on the occasion of a "wardrobe" malfunction during a super bowl half time some years ago, and shortly after the 9/11 attacks. My point was that the excesses of our culture and our hedonism were precisely the fuel that fired the recruitment efforts of our adversaries: I told him that the blood of American (and other) youth was on his hands. I received a personal letter of regret and remorse, in reply.

Do not imagine, therefore, that in a global community, behavior doesn't matter. I believe it does. That said, I hope it matters to everyone - not just us.

#3. You refer to causes of war that are "not legitimate," which presumes that you have some special enlightenment about the causes that ARE legitimate. Perhaps the Pentagon should defer to your judgement as to what is, and is not, legitimate. But relieve our defense people of this exercise, please. Tell us now Barbara, the legitimate reasons for war, so that we may be spared any wrong decisions in the future. What, Barbara, exactly what, would make any future engagement legitimate in your mind?

As to our old friend Muammar, shall we be instructed to avoid alliances or support of any nature with the rulers of the current time, so as to avoid embarrassment in the future? Ho Chí Minh was also a buddy of ours at one time, when he had issues with the Chinese. And so, of course, was Saddam, when he was unhappy with the Persians. And so was King George, who some of our founders imagined as a beneficent and reasonable person, until he was not. So tell, us, Barbara, please, how do we discern NOW, in the present day, who will not cause us great regret, loss and embarrassment in the future? Or otherwise, tell us which society, which government, which culture has ever been immune from the problems of alliances gone bad. The only person in my recollection who has ever understood this issue (but never resolved it) was Nicolo, whose writings were bedside reading for leaders world wide, and, I suppose, still are.

#4 At last you agree that there is no evidence whatsoever that peace begets peace. But the idea that peace has never been given a chance is hollow. In fact, at every point that peace prevailed, it has been used to re-arm, to build, to become mighty; either by the dominant society, or the ones beyond its realm. The most lasting peace that I recall from history is the "Pax Romana," which existed primarily because there was a single society which totally dominated the territory under its control. And many of its subjects might have argued that the peace came at a serious price. So, tell us, Barbara, how do we give peace a chance? What, exactly, shall we do? And will your recommendation guarantee that peace prevails, forever? Or will it be just a good idea at the time? The only way I could make peace with my tormentors was to bend to their will, do their bidding. Is that what you suggest? Are you ready, Barbara, to shed western garb and wear the burka? Are you ready to be killed because you don't advance the dynastic imperative? Or do you need to not only convince US that we need to give peace a chance, but also convince those who would impose their ideas of peace upon us? Shall we send you, Barbara, as an emissary to carry out this good work?

Oh, and as to Kim, who you suggest was under Clinton's charm - you presume to know his motives and rationale. I don't, myself, know much about what makes Kim tick. But I do believe, from personal contact, that he likes good scotch and blonde women from western cultures. Any volunteers?

Finally, you bet that I am a "gun-toter." I'll bet I'm NOT a gun-toter. How much do you bet? How about $1000.00? If you win the bet, then I give $1,000 to your favorite cause. And if I win? You owe me a martini. So, what's it going to be, Barbara? Wanna make that bet? But of course, the bet itself is a farce; you have simply used it as a way to express your belief that people who carry heat are fearful. You have set me up as a straw man. But, the bet's still on. You in?

#5. This section of your response has devolved into your opinions. The problem is US - no one else, Barbara, just us. This MUST be true because you have said it is true. My last dollar - the milk, or the bullet? No mention of the Mother? But, I will answer: I will not spend my last dollar on the milk. No, Barbara, I will spend my FIRST dollar on the milk. my LAST dollar goes to the bullet.

And this is classic, quoting you "Any misbegotten notion you have that Dave or anyone else seeks to rob the rich and give to the poor is well, misbegotten. We would just like to rid the rich of their misbegotten wealth; . . ."

REALLY? And who decides what portion of the wealth is "misbegotten?" You? Dave? Again, please spare us. Just tell all readers right now, what portion of wealth for every individual is "misbegotten?" Do you, Barbara, have any "misbegotten" wealth? Is all your treasure pure, undefiled and free of any moral encumbrance? If so, then good for you. But if not, then what should we take from you so that all that remains is not misbegotten?

You have asked, ". . .if you're so smart, why don't you understand that this is but an invitation for people like you to add to the conversation?" This presumes, possibly, that I'm not really very smart at all. If I WERE smart, then I would understand the polemic as an "invitation." Therefore, I'm as stupid as a table. How did I MISS this invitation? you ask. Conclusion: Because I'm stupid.

On the other hand, the material in Dave's misbegotten essay and the didactic web site strongly suggest that the conference is simply an invitation to absorb the same kind of nonsense there that he has presented here. No thanks, Barb. I may get it all wrong, but I doubt that the speakers at the conference get it all right, either. If I want a "conversation" about this, I'll get it over a martini -the one you will owe me.

If war is so profitable, why have we been in one for 8 years under GW and now we are broke? Oh wait, only 10 (very very very rich) people actually profitted and now they are crying about a possible tax hike to cover our national debt? If we spent federal military money on wars overseas and they proftted while we all lost jobs, are they really patriots? If so, they would pay the stupid tax and actually save the americans that they didnt actually have to protect from fake WMD's. GW and his war cronies screwed us twice, and we still seem to want to vote repbulican? Do ywe not realize they don't care about the average redneck, they just want our cash and our son's life so they can make fun of us on their yachts? DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE! Republican war mongers are not necessarily here to help. After all, they are from the government, too.

Caseonia,

1) I don't think anyone is knocking somoene who works at radio shack, I think they are knocking people who expect to work for 9.00 an hour and live the same standard of living as the person with more training education and skill.

2) The people who declare bankruptsy because of catastphophic unforseen healthcare costs are doing what they are supposed to do, utilize the system as designed. They used to jail debtors. The bankruptsy avenue is a reasonable tool to use in this case and the possibility of it occuring is built into the system. Taxing those who work and GIVING people free healthcare is not a more fair solution because the bankruptsy judge can see if they are scamming or not. The government cannot and will not judge the lazy obese alcholic drug addicted smokers from the truly needy person. Since they won't do it up front then the judges do it on the back end. The system works. (poorly granted but obamcare ain't the fix)

3) The reason that prices escalate is because the government subsidizes the poor. This raises the cost of everything and by default lowers the wages people make by the same amount. (If a person is getting food stamps free healthcare and subsidized rent is equal to 1500 a month then they are making MORE than the 9.00 an hour radio shack guy....)

4) people despise the wealthy as if the wealthy have money that would be in their pocket. The fact of the matter is that if you took that money from the wealthy and used it to pay down the debt it would not be pulled from their mattress but from their investments which means that FEWER jobs would be created. Interest rates would rise and those that don't work woulld still be whining about not getting enough free stuff. The wealthy are not the enemy. The enemy is the government who has lined not only the pockets of the rich but the pockets of the lazy and poor and all at the expense of the middle class.

Bill gates made your life better. The fat piece of crap on welfare didn't do anything but cause your rent to be higher because he gets his paid by you thru your taxes

5) All waste and fraud in the military complex should be rooted out and that is probably 40% of the pentagon budget. Once that is done than we can look at downsizing based on the world situation which may get us an additional 10-20%. Saying Peace will break out all over if the US lays down its weapons is a joke. Set your ipod down on the downtown mall and see how long before someone steals it. Evil is a fact of life.

.

JSGeare,

As a libertarian I read what Caesonia is talking about here all the time. I think what was being referenced was not only this thread, but the attitude of those on this thread from other threads. Let me quote from this very commentary:

"coddle people who are lazy peices of crap and who think they should be able to work at Radio shack"

Even if those individuals had unrealistic expectations about what they could afford, they are not necessarily lazy. Nor do they hold the monopoly of unrealistic expectations. I count from the poorest to the richest in this nation in that arena.

So be nonplussed and choose to not see on this very thread, and what you conveniently wish to ignore. With folks like you the great corporate welfare checks to companies that should have been allowed to fail pass unnoticed while the kids eating cheap fattening food are to be cursed, along with their parents.

old timer. if you are going to quote someone at least do it in context
YOUR CUT AND PASTE:
coddle people who are lazy peices of crap and who think they should be able to work at Radio shack
THE ACTUAL SENTENCE:
to coddle people who are lazy peices of crap and who think they should be able to work at Radio shack and own a nice house and two cars

If the guy at radio shack with his three days training deserves a nice house and two cars then his boss deserves a nicer house and so and so forth which means that a skilled person like a nurse should be pulling in a cool 300k a year and be bashed by Obama for more taxes.

A lie of ommision is still a lie.

One doesn't have to be a pacifist to recognize the USA is spending way too much unaccounted for and borrowed money on national defense. Cut it in half; bring the troops home. Let's do some nation building here.