Comments on: Iraq is a domestic issue.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:27:36 +0000

Also consider the following post, which I entitled: “The Seventy Million Children Left Behind War.”

http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/30/the-seventy-million-children-left-behind-war/#comment-16523

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:02:08 +0000

as Aida Edemariam puts it in the Guardian, it would have paid for “8 million housing units, or 15 million public school teachers, or healthcare for 530 million children for a year, or scholarships to university for 43 million students.” Of course, as John McCain himself has told us, he “doesn’t really understand economics.” But foreign policy does not exist in an economics vacuum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-3000000000000-wa_b_89596.html

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 04:37:04 +0000

How expensive is the U.S. occupation of Iraq? Check out this column from the St. Petersburg Times by clicking here.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:02:08 +0000

Here’s a website focusing on this very issue that Iraq is a Domestic issue: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:03:25 +0000

Erika: I agree with you entirely. Though I didn’t mention those other horrific costs in this post, I’ve posted on them here and here and here .

I wrote this particular post because the media has generally failed to focus on the substantial domestic damage we are suffering by diverting massive economic resouces to occupy Iraq. In this post, I mentioned the availability heuristic as one likely cause, though there are other reasons for this failing, including our national hyper-consumerism and the proud ignorance we (and our President) display regarding the long-term consequences of our actions.

By: Erika Price

Erika Price — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:12:28 +0000

I definitely see Lamont’s success as an exhilarating victory, but I find it a little sad that we have to focus on the economic cost of the war to get Americans to listen, as oppossed to the ahem, other gaping costs.

By: grumpypilgrim

grumpypilgrim — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:06:27 +0000

As regards the macroeconomics of federal spending, there is an even easier way to understand why Erich is correct to call Iraq a domestic issue. At its most basic level, federal spending (which includes tax breaks, because they are merely federal spending by another name) can be divided into just two categories: investment and consumption. As with our own personal spending (which we can either invest or consume), the federal government, likewise, can either invest our tax money for future growth, or buy goods and services for current consumption. Obviously, more spending on investment (say, for education, roads, bridges, hospitals, Internet infrastructure, job training, etc.) means less is available for today’s consumption, but more will be created when the investment pays off in the future. This distinction isn’t entirely clear-cut — i.e., every “investment” will have aspects of consumption (e.g., investing in education requires the consumption of teaching services, janitorial services, books, sports equipment, etc.) just as every “consumption” will have aspects of investment (e.g., welfare aid to poor families is also an investment in their future prosperity and in community stability) — but it is helpful.

With this simple framework in mind, Bush’s spending for the unnecessary invasion of Iraq can be seen for what it is: a giant money pit. As Erich points out, if the same money Bush has spent in Iraq were spent, instead, in America — especially if the money were directed toward investment rather than consumption — the future benefit to America (and even to the rest of the world) could have been profound. Instead, Bush has spent our tax dollars to first destroy and then rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, for a net gain of zero.

And what is the investment aspect of this consumption? The fanciful belief that terrorists will be less likely to attack Americans in the future: a belief that is obviously delusional given the growing sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing power of radical Muslims throughout the world, the global condemnation of America’s actions in the Middle East, etc. Bush has spent hundreds of billions of American tax dollars (and more than 2500 American lives) so that we can all “feel safer” by having Saddam in jail, but his invasion has drained our treasury, ruined our global reputation and robbed America of the moral high ground. Meanwhile, back in America, gasoline prices have skyrocketed, global warming is destroying our crops, the lack of affordable healthcare is crippling middle-class families, Katrina victims are still looking for affordable housing…all while Bush and his Republican pals in Congress spend their time trying to undermine our own citizens with laws against stem cell research, abortion and same-sex marriage. To the American readers of this blog: how much safer do you feel?

By: grumpypilgrim

grumpypilgrim — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:35:30 +0000

Just this morning, I discovered an amazing page on the GOP website (http://www.gop.com/Issues/SpendingRestraint/). It touts *spending restraint* as a key feature of Bush’s presidency. No kidding, here’s a quote from a paragraph titled, “Fiscal Discipline & Managing for Results:” “The FY 2007 Budget builds on last year’s successful spending restraint by again holding the growth of overall discretionary spending below inflation, proposing to reduce non-security discretionary spending below the previous year’s level, and calling for the elimination or reduction of programs not getting results or not fulfilling essential priorities.”

See their game? They claim “spending restraint” by only mentioning “non-security discretionary spending.” That’s how they sidestep record budget deficits and uncontrolled military spending. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy aren’t considered “spending” (even though they produce budget deficits exactly as spending does), while spending in Iraq isn’t “non-security.” So, if we exclude those things, Bush magically becomes a budget hawk.

My favorite part is where they call for “the elimination or reduction of programs not getting results or not fulfilling essential priorities.” You can bet they’re not including Iraq here, either.

War is peace, torture is justice, wiretapping is freedom, ignorance is strength, spending is saving…Orwell would indeed be proud of President Bush.