Political Progress in Iraq

[Pangloss]

(lol) Uh oh, pee building up again....

 

Hey Agent, I think that budget doesn't include Iraq, btw. I think that was a supplemental bill.

[iNow]

This morning, on THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos, Senator Barrack Obama (in another context) made the comment that the $9 billion per month spent in Iraq could go a very long way toward improving infrastructure within the nation, as well as toward healthcare and other issues causing great duress locally.

 

I happen to agree completely with that sentiment, and think that many in this thread share that understanding. We'd rather it be spent at home fixing problems we all face than it be spent in Iraq. If that's fair or not is up to you to decide, but I find it the most logical.

 

 

Below is the video of that appearance, which is split into four clips. The comment I reference above is a few minutes in:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4196998

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4197048

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4197071

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4197089

 

 

Cheers.

[Pangloss]

I watched it, as George S. is a regular for me. I thought he did a good interview there although I thought George was a little soft on him, even going so far as to partially answer his own question with regard to the conflict with the Clintons. But the issues questions were fairly on-point.

 

The infrastructure issue remains important although I think perhaps not as important as we were led to believe a few months ago. The bridge collapse in Minnesota had nothing to do with failed repairs -- it was faulty construction when it was built. Funny how that never gets reported, but they were all gung-ho to tell us how the collapsed showed a need for emergency spending on that issue.

 

We do need to put money (a LOT of money) into infrastructure, but we can do that well within earnings. The last thing we want is for an Obama presidency to turn out to be a debt ballooning that would make Ronald Reagan blush. That's not CHANGE, that's MORE OF THE SAME.

[iNow]

The infrastructure issue remains important although I think perhaps not as important as we were led to believe a few months ago. The bridge collapse in Minnesota had nothing to do with failed repairs -- it was faulty construction when it was built. Funny how that never gets reported, but they were all gung-ho to tell us how the collapsed showed a need for emergency spending on that issue.

 

When he spoke of infrastructure, he seemed more interested in bringing (I'm not sure I'm selecting the right word here, but...) broadband access to remote areas. While roads and bridges play a part, I think his version of "infrastructure" is more 21st century than 19th.

 

 

The last thing we want is for an Obama presidency to turn out to be a debt ballooning that would make Ronald Reagan blush. That's not CHANGE, that's MORE OF THE SAME.

 

Which words did he speak which led you to suggest this potentiality? I think I missed something. Are you suggesting that Obama will spend more than he should if he takes office? If so, can you elaborate why?

[Pangloss]

When he spoke of infrastructure, he seemed more interested in bringing (I'm not sure I'm selecting the right word here, but...) broadband access to remote areas. While roads and bridges play a part, I think his version of "infrastructure" is more 21st century than 19th.

 

In my defense, I was responding specifically to the point he raised on the issue of road/bridge repair in the interview -- I didn't just bring it up out of the blue. But I agree with what you're saying there, and that was clearly the point he was trying to make. I didn't mean to suggest that he was saying we should spend $9bil/mon on road and bridge repair.

 

 

Are you suggesting that Obama will spend more than he should if he takes office? If so, can you elaborate why?

 

Yes, that's my concern. He talks so much about where we need to be spending money, and the ways he's talking about are not ways that improve income, so that means cutting spending, which he doesn't talk about. Not that he's any worse than any other candidate in this regard, but he's supposed to be the candidate for change, and I intend to hold him to that label. Spending more while taking in less, and doing so to appease certain segments of the population, isn't change at all -- it's absolutely business as usual.

[iNow]

Okay... well... I think we should wait to have that particular conversation until a year or two after he swears in on inauguration day. Seems rather premature to try to do so now. Cheers.

[Pangloss]

You people have been telling us for eight years how awful it is that we went from a surplus to a deficit and how it's all Bush's fault. Isn't that issue important anymore?

[iNow]

You people have been telling us for eight years how awful it is that we went from a surplus to a deficit and how it's all Bush's fault. Isn't that issue important anymore?

 

Of course it is. Where's your data that Obama is going to screw things up and spend so much that... how'd you put it... even Ronald Reagan would blush? It's purely speculative right now. Yes, we should be aware of such issues. We should pay attention, and of course they are important. We currently have, however, zero facts and zero actual data since it hasn't happened yet.

 

 

Change means different things to different people, and while some things will change, others will remain the same. Let's not suggest that, if Obama gets elected, matter will become antimatter and that disorder in a closed system will decrease and cats and dogs MUST all suddenly get along (and all manner of other things) just because he ran with a slogan "Change we can believe in."

[Mr Skeptic]

This morning, on THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos, Senator Barrack Obama (in another context) made the comment that the $9 billion per month spent in Iraq could go a very long way toward improving infrastructure within the nation, as well as toward healthcare and other issues causing great duress locally.

 

That seems like a good idea to me. Infrastructure is very important, and generally pays off in the long run. Even if that money were diverted to infrastructure in Iraq, that would probably be better than spending it on military in Iraq (IMO).

 

When he spoke of infrastructure, he seemed more interested in bringing (I'm not sure I'm selecting the right word here, but...) broadband access to remote areas. While roads and bridges play a part, I think his version of "infrastructure" is more 21st century than 19th.

 

Well, I was hoping someone would do something about our aging information infrastructure. It seems that just because we were the first to have an internet infrastructure, we have been too lazy to upgrade it and so now other countries have better internet access than we do.

 

There's really very little reason why we should have separate infrastructures for phones, TV, recreational radio, internet, digital media (physical CDs and stuff). Sure, there may be a few problems, but it could well be much better to simply have a very fast internet connection to provide all these, possibly redundant with the old infrastructure just in case.

 

Even now, it is possible to get some of all of the above with the current internet (though it might be more difficult, or illegal), but if everyone had a fast internet connection we could do some more impressive things. It's really hard to predict what could be done, but it can only be good.