Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

nikto

(3,284 posts)
Thu Sep 5, 2013, 11:31 PM Sep 2013

After the Syrian debate, DON'T EVER TALK TO ME ABOUT THE US NATIONAL DEBT EVER AGAIN!

Remember how THIS used to be so important:
(US Debt clock)

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


Isn't it stunning just how un-important our dreaded DEFICIT has become lately, when war is a possibility?

But don't worry, it will be of paramount importance again, once we get back to discussing healthcare, Social Security, Public Education, or anything that benefits those un-important "Little folks" who comprise most of the American People.

When social programs are on the block, ALL WE HEAR ABOUT IS THE FRIKKING DEFICIT.

But right now, with a juicy war on our representatives' plate, it's just crickets going, "chirp chirp".

I never want to hear pols or their surrogates talking up the debt ever again,
unless it relates to war policy decisions,
as in Syria.


60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
After the Syrian debate, DON'T EVER TALK TO ME ABOUT THE US NATIONAL DEBT EVER AGAIN! (Original Post) nikto Sep 2013 OP
Yup I agree gopiscrap Sep 2013 #1
The phoniness... nikto Sep 2013 #2
I just wonder how much of this war mongering is gopiscrap Sep 2013 #3
I would guess - all of it. Just a little fund raiser. They should offer car washes. eom Blanks Sep 2013 #32
What is it? Like in 5 weeks we run out of money and they get to start their games Autumn Sep 2013 #4
We at least deserve to know where the money will come from. And none of this rhett o rick Sep 2013 #5
K&R. Wish I could rec this 1000 times. kath Sep 2013 #6
AW shucks... nikto Sep 2013 #48
There are times when you read something, Trillo Sep 2013 #7
I'm curious - did you say that two years ago about the Libya intervention? Tx4obama Sep 2013 #8
Libya was BEFORE "The Sequester". bvar22 Sep 2013 #39
Yup. nikto Sep 2013 #49
Remember the GOP Convention with the National Debt Clock in the background Snake Plissken Sep 2013 #9
Triple Rec! tofuandbeer Sep 2013 #10
HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Sep 2013 #11
Gen. Dempsey: Syria no-fly zone could cost US $1B per month Catherina Sep 2013 #12
did you see this? questionseverything Sep 2013 #37
I didn't see that but it fits the picture. Catherina Sep 2013 #42
in the following thread questionseverything Sep 2013 #58
Suddenly the Baggers are falling all over each other to raise the Debt Ceiling Snake Plissken Sep 2013 #13
I don't see them backing military action againsy Syria. Puzzledtraveller Sep 2013 #15
Neither do I. truedelphi Sep 2013 #47
I don't either. The most vocal in the repub party are against action in Syria. (nt) SlimJimmy Sep 2013 #59
Average Syrian looks lighter skinned than average American golfguru Sep 2013 #56
A Syria strike, as contemplated, will have virtually no effect on the debt clock pinboy3niner Sep 2013 #14
You think bombs and war is free now? Really? LOL /nt Dragonfli Sep 2013 #20
I didn't say that, clearly--but you knew that pinboy3niner Sep 2013 #21
I see your point, but I think they low balled even the original estimate, considering that one Dragonfli Sep 2013 #24
Louis... pinboy3niner Sep 2013 #25
Only if you drink Dragonfli Sep 2013 #26
I'll have you know I thrink I can dink with the best of 'em pinboy3niner Sep 2013 #28
Hmm. When i read your post, I thought"Them that don't remember history sure as heck truedelphi Sep 2013 #29
My point was that it's not about the debt clock pinboy3niner Sep 2013 #30
C'mon, at the very least... nikto Sep 2013 #53
We should be told any day now that we will be treated as liberators. Blanks Sep 2013 #33
No effect? You have no way of knowing that. nikto Sep 2013 #51
The only way to change the discussion back to the concerns of the people..... DeSwiss Sep 2013 #16
Masters of War hibbing Sep 2013 #17
. 99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #40
My point exactly. nikto Sep 2013 #54
Well one excellent strategy for the GOP would be............ wandy Sep 2013 #18
The Soviet Union collapsed over fiscal credibility, not military credibility markiv Sep 2013 #19
There Really Should Be A Lay Away War grilled onions Sep 2013 #22
According to the war mongers, this war is free! LOL grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #23
Keynes had the right answer .... tax the rich to pay for the war .... and MindMover Sep 2013 #27
100% taxes for everyone who votes for a war dickthegrouch Sep 2013 #36
Boom! K&R Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2013 #31
Money is not the issue treestar Sep 2013 #34
Actually money IS the issue, that the MIC wants MORE & MORE of it. 99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #41
we've allowed these type of attacks before noiretextatique Sep 2013 #43
LOL, not it is not! No distraction at all, we don't need another war! n-t Logical Sep 2013 #44
All the money in the world for WAR! workinclasszero Sep 2013 #35
I suspect the GOP will find a sudden interest in paying for this war n2doc Sep 2013 #38
Just a show for the rubes LevelB Sep 2013 #45
And no one better say anything about Iraq anymore either davidn3600 Sep 2013 #46
Yeppers, totally agree! City Lights Sep 2013 #50
Fix this nation before destroying another. xfundy Sep 2013 #52
Luv this cartoon nikto Sep 2013 #55
National Debt? Hey, we profit from war! tecelote Sep 2013 #57
kick woo me with science Sep 2013 #60

Autumn

(44,980 posts)
4. What is it? Like in 5 weeks we run out of money and they get to start their games
Thu Sep 5, 2013, 11:38 PM
Sep 2013

again on cut this, cut that. But damn, we can afford a hot new intervention in another country. It's disgusting.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
5. We at least deserve to know where the money will come from. And none of this
Thu Sep 5, 2013, 11:57 PM
Sep 2013

bull crap about the free Syrians will pay. Or the Saudi's will pay.

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
7. There are times when you read something,
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:06 AM
Sep 2013

and you just know it's the truth.

K&R

Mercenaries, I believe the story was

Snake Plissken

(4,103 posts)
9. Remember the GOP Convention with the National Debt Clock in the background
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:25 AM
Sep 2013

Give me a fucking break.

The GOP Welfare Queens only have a problem with debt when the money is used on American citizens who really need it.

Catherina

(35,568 posts)
12. Gen. Dempsey: Syria no-fly zone could cost US $1B per month
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:33 AM
Sep 2013

Gen. Dempsey: Syria no-fly zone could cost US $1B per month
By Jeremy Herb - 07/22/13 05:27 PM ET

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers Monday that a no-fly zone in Syria would cost $500 million initially and as much as $1 billion per month to maintain.

In a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Dempsey also warned that a no-fly zone risks U.S. forces deploying into Syria if U.S. aircraft are shot down.

...

“We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action,” Dempsey wrote. “Should the regime's institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control.”

Dempsey’s letter comes after he and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) got into a heated dispute over U.S. military intervention in Syria at his confirmation hearing last week.

...

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/312675-gen-dempsey-syria-no-fly-zone-could-cost-1b-per-month

questionseverything

(9,645 posts)
37. did you see this?
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 01:24 PM
Sep 2013

In an August 2013 article titled “Larry Summers and the Secret ‘End-game’ Memo,” Greg Palast posted evidence of a secret late-1990s plan devised by Wall Street and U.S. Treasury officials to open banking to the lucrative derivatives business. To pull this off required the relaxation of banking regulations not just in the US but globally. The vehicle to be used was the Financial Services Agreement of the World Trade Organization.

The “end-game” would require not just coercing support among WTO members but taking down those countries refusing to join. Some key countries remained holdouts from the WTO, including Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria. In these Islamic countries, banks are largely state-owned; and “usury” – charging rent for the “use” of money – is viewed as a sin, if not a crime. That puts them at odds with the Western model of rent extraction by private middlemen. Publicly-owned banks are also a threat to the mushrooming derivatives business, since governments with their own banks don’t need interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, or investment-grade ratings by private rating agencies in order to finance their operations.

Bank deregulation proceeded according to plan, and the government-sanctioned and -nurtured derivatives business mushroomed into a $700-plus trillion pyramid scheme. Highly leveraged, completely unregulated, and dangerously unsustainable, it collapsed in 2008 when investment bank Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, taking a large segment of the global economy with it. The countries that managed to escape were those sustained by public banking models outside the international banking net.

These countries were not all Islamic. Forty percent of banks globally are publicly-owned. They are largely in the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—which house forty percent of the global population. They also escaped the 2008 credit crisis, but they at least made a show of conforming to Western banking rules. This was not true of the “rogue” Islamic nations, where usury was forbidden by Islamic teaching. To make the world safe for usury, these rogue states had to be silenced by other means. Having failed to succumb to economic coercion, they wound up in the crosshairs of the powerful US military.

Catherina

(35,568 posts)
42. I didn't see that but it fits the picture.
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 03:53 PM
Sep 2013

Suggestion for my country. How about getting back to manufacturing and actually having something behind the dollar instead of forcing other countries at gunpoint to finance our neoliberal parasitic, non-productive ways that only enrich the 1%?

The BRIC countries are so sick of it that, at the G20, they set up the framework to finance a rival bank to the IMF to the tune of $100 Billion for infrastructure development (at non-parasitic rates) in their member states.

Thanks for your post. I'll look for the Greg Palast piece on this.

Snake Plissken

(4,103 posts)
13. Suddenly the Baggers are falling all over each other to raise the Debt Ceiling
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:33 AM
Sep 2013

because the money is going to be used to kill Brown people.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
47. Neither do I.
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 04:35 PM
Sep 2013

In fact, Sen. Rand Paul was quite eloquent in his speech against going out on this particular war limb.

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
56. Average Syrian looks lighter skinned than average American
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 06:47 PM
Sep 2013

So the brown people theory may not apply here.

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
14. A Syria strike, as contemplated, will have virtually no effect on the debt clock
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:38 AM
Sep 2013

And $$$ is one of the worst reasons for opposing it.

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
21. I didn't say that, clearly--but you knew that
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 01:53 AM
Sep 2013

In the hearings, U.S. officials put the cost "in the tens of millions." Though it now sounds like the original plan is expanding and we may need a new cost estimate.

So the currently projected cost in any case--coming out of the military budget--wouldn't make a blip in the debt clock.

Personally, I think the repurcussions of a strike will only draw the U.S. in further, militarily--with potentially humongous costs.

But money, and U.S. debt, will still be one of the worst reasons for opposing this.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
24. I see your point, but I think they low balled even the original estimate, considering that one
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 02:14 AM
Sep 2013

of our preferred missiles for the original strike as it was proposed cost 1.5 mil a pop and they were talking about lobbing them for 60 and even possibly 90 days. I agree with you that such intervention is sure to escalate but I differ in that I believe (possibly due to cynicism) that it will be a massive escalation, more in the trillion range.

I do agree that money is the least noble of arguments to be made against wholesale death, but I also believe lack of it kills people right here at home and is perhaps therefore a more valid argument than you may be considering it to be at first evaluation.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
29. Hmm. When i read your post, I thought"Them that don't remember history sure as heck
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 05:58 AM
Sep 2013

Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 05:59 PM - Edit history (2)

Help it get repeated."

Why we had that lovely war of short duration in Iraq, commencing in 2003, and that one got paid for by all the gas we shipped over to this country for free! And it only lasted ten days, or was it weeks... Oh, wait, it was TEN YEARS!

Two hard working American authors recently released a book entitled "The Three Billion Dollar War," and the truth is, by the time they got the book written, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated to be approximately 6 trillion bucks.

Anyone telling the American people that some military action is only going to cost millions of dollars will also be telling you that they are telling the truth. But I sure can't even remember a war we have fought that was not based on lies, and ended up destroying truth every time any report was issued about what was going on.

 

nikto

(3,284 posts)
53. C'mon, at the very least...
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 05:23 PM
Sep 2013

The potentially enormous co$t is a good "add-on" reason, and does reflect on US Morality,
since we have such a stingy streak in areas of human concern like healthcare and many other benefits,
always arguing over cutting/eliminating the $$ spent.

What you spend your money on is an indication of what you value.


Imagine a gang-member with kids, who has no food in the fridge, and nothing but potato chips on the shelf,
goes out and spends a bunch of ca$h
on a shiny new AK47 to get those rival Crips.

I see a parallel here.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
33. We should be told any day now that we will be treated as liberators.
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 10:19 AM
Sep 2013

That's what really sold me on the last war.

 

nikto

(3,284 posts)
51. No effect? You have no way of knowing that.
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 05:01 PM
Sep 2013

Once the attacks start, anything can happen, including huge unintended consequences.

Please think it through with this in mind.
Once started, wars like this can quickly take on a life of their own.

History has many examples.

I am old enough to remember the Vietnam era, when that was the case, bigtime.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
16. The only way to change the discussion back to the concerns of the people.....
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:53 AM
Sep 2013

...is to change the people (not) discussing it.

- It's pretty simple. Follow a party, or follow your conscience.....

K&R

hibbing

(10,094 posts)
17. Masters of War
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 01:01 AM
Sep 2013

Always money for war, only when it will actually help the majority of Americans does the deficit become and issue, then it is always programs that help people that get cut. I'm getting sick of it all.

Peace

wandy

(3,539 posts)
18. Well one excellent strategy for the GOP would be............
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 01:06 AM
Sep 2013

to wait for the shooting to start.
Yes this is war. THEN threaten to shut the government down.
Not sure they wouldn't get anything they wanted.

They have about five weeks to put this together.
I haven't the slightest doubt that they would do it.

 

markiv

(1,489 posts)
19. The Soviet Union collapsed over fiscal credibility, not military credibility
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 01:15 AM
Sep 2013

we would be wise to think about that, when we act for our 'credibility'

grilled onions

(1,957 posts)
22. There Really Should Be A Lay Away War
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 02:03 AM
Sep 2013

Considering the fact that they seem to be so concerned about spending and saving they should be forced to put a little away here and there(and social programs would not be allowed to be cut for this--that's too easy and far too much of that kind of thinking has been going around lately) and that their war of the month club would not be allowed to start until they completely paid for a good chunk of it.

MindMover

(5,016 posts)
27. Keynes had the right answer .... tax the rich to pay for the war .... and
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 02:30 AM
Sep 2013

tell us poor folk to save, save, save, BUY BONDS, BUY BONDS, BUY BONDS.....

treestar

(82,383 posts)
34. Money is not the issue
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 10:20 AM
Sep 2013

Just another distraction. Allowing the use of chemical weapons is a bigger deal than a bigger deficit or the lack of spending on other things.

People don't want to face up to allowing chemical weapons attacks and are thinking of all sorts of distractions.

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
43. we've allowed these type of attacks before
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 03:58 PM
Sep 2013

But there is an even more striking instance of the United States ignoring use of the chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of people -- during the grinding Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. As documented in 2002 by Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons, but U.S. officials were more concerned about whether Iran would win rather than how Iraq might eke out a victory. Dobbs noted that Iraq’s chemical weapons’ use was “hardly a secret, with the Iraqi military issuing this warning in February 1984: ”The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/2013/09/04/0ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html

any money is always an issue with war.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
35. All the money in the world for WAR!
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 10:25 AM
Sep 2013

Trillions and trillions!!!!!! No worries at all!

But..your kid is hungry? You have no job? No healthcare? TOUGH SHIT LOSER!!! We ain't got no money...its...all gone! Yeah, thats it!

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
38. I suspect the GOP will find a sudden interest in paying for this war
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 02:38 PM
Sep 2013

After it is started. Then it will be "We need to cut food stamps and medicaid in order to pay for the Syrian War. We must be responsible!"

LevelB

(194 posts)
45. Just a show for the rubes
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 04:06 PM
Sep 2013

No one gives a hoot about the debt, except for using it as a cudgel to beat us over the head.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
46. And no one better say anything about Iraq anymore either
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 04:12 PM
Sep 2013

We were supposed to end this nation-building bullshit back when we got the GOP out of office. Now we are picking up where the neo-cons left off.

Im sick of sending billions and billions of dollars building up these mid-east countries that hate our guts when we got people here who are starving in the streets of America, people who can't afford healthcare, and a soaring national debt. Yet we have plenty of money to bomb other countries and build multi-billion dollar domestic spy facilities.

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
57. National Debt? Hey, we profit from war!
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 07:39 PM
Sep 2013

Oh, well, maybe you (the people) don't. But, we (your representatives) do!

So do big business.

War is what makes this country great!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»After the Syrian debate, ...