Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: The absence of debate over war

Ultimate Peach





Posts: 3106
(3106 all sites)
Registered: 5/16/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:25 AM
Good editorial. What most Americans who "simply don't care enough to demand a debate on the issue" fail to realize is "how much" these never ending wars are costing. America will eventually go "bankrupt" in fighting these wars, and then and only then will America "wake up" to the cost of wars without end. I do pity the men and women who are in America's military and having to go on deployment after deployment to fight these wars knowing full well that there is no victory or end in sight. Btw, thanks to the American Conservative for posting this article.

quote:
Think Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly have nothing in common? They, and virtually all members of the mainstream media, refuse to challenge disastrous U.S. wars. And Americans--the overwhelming majority of whom are not fighting the wars on the battlefield--simply don't care enough to demand a debate on the issue.

The absence of debate over war
By Glenn Greenwald

The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt ponders how little attention our various wars received during the primary campaigns that were just conducted: "You would hardly know, from following this year's election campaign or the extensive coverage of last week's primaries, that America is at war. . . . those wars, and the wisdom of committing to or withdrawing from them, have hardly been mentioned in the hard-fought campaigns of the spring." Hiatt is right in that observation, and it's worth examining the reasons for this.

One significant cause of America's indifference to the wars we are waging is that those wars have virtually no effect on the overwhelming majority of Americans (at least no recognized effect), while they impose a huge cost on a tiny sliver of the population: those who fight the wars and their families. Hiatt acknowledges that fact: "it's yet another reminder of American society's separation from its professional military." If anyone would know about that, it's the endless-war-loving, nowhere-near-a-battlefield Fred Hiatt.

Everyone from the Founders to George Orwell thought (and hoped) that the massive societal costs which wars impose would be a deterrent to their being fought, but, given the types of wars the U.S. chooses to wage, most Americans who express their "support" for them bear absolutely no perceived cost whatsoever. Worse, many who cheer for our wars enjoy that most intoxicating and distorting reward: cost-free benefits, in the form of vicarious feelings of strength, purpose, nobility and the like, all from a safe distance. It's very difficult to generate attention for political issues that Americans fail to perceive so directly and tangibly affect them -- that's why the failing economy receives so much attention and our various wars (and civil liberties erosions) do not.

Then there's the lack of partisan division over these wars. During the Bush presidency, war debates raged because those wars -- especially the Iraq war -- were a GOP liability and a Democratic Party asset. Anger over the Iraq War drove the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and Obama's election in 2008 (though it did not drive the end of the war). But now, America's wars are no longer Republican wars; they're Democratic wars as well. Both parties are thus vested in their defense, which guts any real debate or opposition. Very few Republicans are going to speak ill of wars which their party started and continued for years, and very few Democrats are going to malign wars which their President is now prosecuting.

Here we find, once again, one of the most consequential aspects of the Obama presidency thus far: the conversion of numerous Bush/Cheney policies from what they once were (controversial, divisive, right-wing extremism) into what they have become (uncontroversial bipartisan consensus). One sees this dynamic most clearly in the Terrorism/civil-liberties realm, but it is quite glaring in the realm of war as well. Hiatt describes it this way:


[M]aybe, in a time of toxic partisanship, we should be grateful for this inattention to the wars, taking the absence of debate as a sign of rare bipartisan consensus. Certainly few would miss the vitriol of the Iraq debate of a few years back.


It's not surprising that Hiatt is grateful for the disappearance of what he calls "the vitriol of the Iraq debate a few years back." As one of the media's leading cheerleaders for the invasion and ongoing occupation, it's understandable that he wants no longer to be reminded of the enormous amounts of innocent blood which he and his war-cheering comrades have on their permanently drenched hands. But he is nonetheless right to take "the absence of debate" as a "sign of rare bipartisan consensus" (though such consensus is hardly "rare"). It's true that the (dubious) perception that the Iraq War will soon end has probably dampened the urgency of that issue in the eyes of many people, as have the pretty words that Obama utters when he speaks of war, but the real reason the "debates" have disappeared is because it serves neither party to engage them.

But the most significant factor in understanding this lack of debate is the fact that "war" is not some aberrational, temporary state of affairs for the country. It's the opposite. Thanks to Fred Hiatt and his friends, war is basically the permanent American condition: war is who we are and what we do as a nation. We're essentially a war fighting state. We have been at "war" the entire last decade (as well as largley non-stop for the decades which preceded it), and continue now to be at "war" with no end in sight. That's clearly true of our specific wars (in Afghanistan). And, worse, the way in which The War, more broadly, has been defined (i.e., against Islamic extremism/those who wish to harm Americans) makes it highly likely that it will never end in our lifetime. The decree that we are "at war" has been repeated over and over for a full decade, drumbed into our heads from all directions without pause, sanctified as one of those Bipartisan Orthodoxies that nobody can dispute upon pain of having one's Seriousness credentials immediately and irrevocably revoked. With war this normalized, is it really surprising that nobody debates it any longer? It'd be like debating the color of the sky.

That's why I always find the War Excuse for anything the Government does so baffling and nonsensical. Any objections one voices to what the Executive Branch does -- indefinite detentions, presidential assassinations of citizens, extreme secrecy, etc. -- will be met with the justification that such actions are permissible "during wartime," as though "wartime" is some special, temporary, fleeting state of affairs which necessitates vesting powers in the government which, during "normal" times, would be impermissible.

But the contrast between "war and "normal times" is totally illusory. For the United States, war is normalcy. The "war" we're fighting has been defined and designed to be virtually endless. Political leaders from both parties have been explicit about that. Here's how Obama put it last May in his "civil liberties" speech:


Now this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. And unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability -- 10 years from now.


All the way back in September, 2001, with the World Trade Center still smoldering, George Bush said basically the same thing: "Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. . . . Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen." Thus: to justify new and unaccountable powers based on the fact that we are "at war" is, in essence, to change the American political system permanently, because the "war," and the accompanying powers that it justifies, are not going anywhere for many, many years to come.

With both political parties affirming over and over that we are going to be at "war" for years, indeed decades, it's unsurprising that so few people are interested in debating "war." That's true even for the limited question of Afghanistan, where most Republicans won't question a war their President began and most Democrats won't question a war their President has vigorously embraced as his own. From the perspective of the permanent factions that rule Washington -- from Wall Street and AIPAC to the intelligence and military "communities" -- therein lies the beauty of the two-party system: as long as both party establishments support a particular policy, any meaningful debate over it comes to a grinding halt.



UPDATE: Just to underscore the point: suppose that Obama announced that he did not intend to withdraw troops from Iraq and/or Afghanistan on schedule, or suppose that he decided that the U.S. should militarily confront/attack Iran ostensibly over its nuclear weapons program. If any of that were to happen, how would most Democrats -- and the Party itself -- react now that there's a Democratic President? Most Republicans would certainly support those policies, so where would the "debate" come from? Isn't it fairly clear that to the extent "debate" existed at all, it would be confined to some small and relatively marginalized enclaves, while the mainstream of both parties supported those decisions? I'm not predicting any of that will happen, only that if it did, there'd be the same lack of debate as Hiatt ponders today.


 
Replies:

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3106
(3106 all sites)
Registered: 5/16/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:29 AM
Btw, here's the Fred Hiatt editorial in the Washington Post that sparked Glenn Greenwood's responds

quote:
In the absence of debate, Iraq and Afghanistan go unnoticed
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, May 24, 2010

You would hardly know, from following this year's election campaign or the extensive coverage of last week's primaries, that America is at war.

Those elected to Congress in November will face fateful decisions on the continued deployment, or not, of U.S. forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet those wars, and the wisdom of committing to or withdrawing from them, have hardly been mentioned in the hard-fought campaigns of the spring.

Look at some candidate Web sites. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, forced into a runoff in Arkansas's Democratic primary, lists 10 categories of issues, none of which are defense or national security. Under "Veterans and National Guard," she does mention the war in Iraq but not the war in Afghanistan. For her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, "National Security, Veterans and the Military" comes eighth on a list of nine issues and begins, "Arkansas is home to military bases that are critical to our nation's security." "Ensuring success in Iraq and Afghanistan" is the entirety of his platform on those conflicts.

In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak, who rode a wave of opposition toward the Iraq war into Congress in 2006, includes defense (fifth out of five topics) on his site but writes mostly about properly equipping and caring for the force and accountability in weapons purchasing. For his Republican opponent, Pat Toomey, "National Security" comes 10th out of 10 (just after "Second Amendment") with no mention, as far as I could see, of Iraq or Afghanistan.

In a time of joblessness and home foreclosures, it's not surprising that politics would focus on the economy more than on national security. And maybe, in a time of toxic partisanship, we should be grateful for this inattention to the wars, taking the absence of debate as a sign of rare bipartisan consensus. Certainly few would miss the vitriol of the Iraq debate of a few years back.

Yet there's something disquieting about the quiet. For one thing, it's yet another reminder of American society's separation from its professional military. As the November elections approach, candidates across the spectrum will ostentatiously wear their support for "our warriors" like body armor, which I suppose is better than the alternative. But as the troops become props, the real men and women who are sweating and taking fire and sleeping on hard ground 7,000 miles away are oddly missing from the conversation.

It also seems likely that apparent bipartisan consensus masks a shallowness of support, an unease that permeates wings of both parties but that, for different reasons, neither party feels ready to politically exploit.

President Obama gets both credited and blamed for the absence of debate. A European diplomat I respect welcomes the political cease-fire and attributes it to Obama having masterfully mollified both Afghanistan hawks (with a surge) and doves (with a guaranteed date to begin withdrawing), defusing disagreement.

Some conservatives look at the flip side of that record and criticize the president for having had too little to say about the war since crafting his plan last fall -- for not reminding Americans more frequently of the sacrifice the troops are making and the reasons they are fighting. Although Obama returned to West Point on Saturday to deliver a commencement address, he does not style himself as a "war president," and many Americans seem content with that; unlike his predecessor, Obama is not chided for playing golf in his off hours.

As long as events cooperate, maybe none of this will matter much. If the Iraqis form a government and U.S. troops can safely begin coming home, if the surge in Afghanistan yields progress, if American casualties do not spike, then war can be 10th out of 10 on the political priority list and the job will still get done.

But wars rarely go according to plan. And if the absence of debate reflects not full-bodied consensus but a wishful averting of eyes, then a spectacular attack on U.S. forces, or even a U.S. surge that yields fruit more slowly than hoped, could tip public opinion abruptly. In that case even political leaders who believe in the mission, having been AWOL from the debate, will have difficulty tipping it back.

fredhiatt@washpost.com



 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6447
(6446 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:38 AM
quote:
Btw, here's the Fred Hiatt editorial in the Washington Post that sparked Glenn Greenwood's responds

quote:
In the absence of debate, Iraq and Afghanistan go unnoticed
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, May 24, 2010

You would hardly know, from following this year's election campaign or the extensive coverage of last week's primaries, that America is at war.

Those elected to Congress in November will face fateful decisions on the continued deployment, or not, of U.S. forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet those wars, and the wisdom of committing to or withdrawing from them, have hardly been mentioned in the hard-fought campaigns of the spring.

Look at some candidate Web sites. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, forced into a runoff in Arkansas's Democratic primary, lists 10 categories of issues, none of which are defense or national security. Under "Veterans and National Guard," she does mention the war in Iraq but not the war in Afghanistan. For her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, "National Security, Veterans and the Military" comes eighth on a list of nine issues and begins, "Arkansas is home to military bases that are critical to our nation's security." "Ensuring success in Iraq and Afghanistan" is the entirety of his platform on those conflicts.

In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak, who rode a wave of opposition toward the Iraq war into Congress in 2006, includes defense (fifth out of five topics) on his site but writes mostly about properly equipping and caring for the force and accountability in weapons purchasing. For his Republican opponent, Pat Toomey, "National Security" comes 10th out of 10 (just after "Second Amendment") with no mention, as far as I could see, of Iraq or Afghanistan.

In a time of joblessness and home foreclosures, it's not surprising that politics would focus on the economy more than on national security. And maybe, in a time of toxic partisanship, we should be grateful for this inattention to the wars, taking the absence of debate as a sign of rare bipartisan consensus. Certainly few would miss the vitriol of the Iraq debate of a few years back.

Yet there's something disquieting about the quiet. For one thing, it's yet another reminder of American society's separation from its professional military. As the November elections approach, candidates across the spectrum will ostentatiously wear their support for "our warriors" like body armor, which I suppose is better than the alternative. But as the troops become props, the real men and women who are sweating and taking fire and sleeping on hard ground 7,000 miles away are oddly missing from the conversation.

It also seems likely that apparent bipartisan consensus masks a shallowness of support, an unease that permeates wings of both parties but that, for different reasons, neither party feels ready to politically exploit.

President Obama gets both credited and blamed for the absence of debate. A European diplomat I respect welcomes the political cease-fire and attributes it to Obama having masterfully mollified both Afghanistan hawks (with a surge) and doves (with a guaranteed date to begin withdrawing), defusing disagreement.

Some conservatives look at the flip side of that record and criticize the president for having had too little to say about the war since crafting his plan last fall -- for not reminding Americans more frequently of the sacrifice the troops are making and the reasons they are fighting. Although Obama returned to West Point on Saturday to deliver a commencement address, he does not style himself as a "war president," and many Americans seem content with that; unlike his predecessor, Obama is not chided for playing golf in his off hours.

As long as events cooperate, maybe none of this will matter much. If the Iraqis form a government and U.S. troops can safely begin coming home, if the surge in Afghanistan yields progress, if American casualties do not spike, then war can be 10th out of 10 on the political priority list and the job will still get done.

But wars rarely go according to plan. And if the absence of debate reflects not full-bodied consensus but a wishful averting of eyes, then a spectacular attack on U.S. forces, or even a U.S. surge that yields fruit more slowly than hoped, could tip public opinion abruptly. In that case even political leaders who believe in the mission, having been AWOL from the debate, will have difficulty tipping it back.

fredhiatt@washpost.com





And the military/industrial/congressional complex marches on......What we could be had we not taken this path after WWII. The money we've wasted on warfare for the past 70 years could have made this country a true economic powerhouse. What could have been.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3106
(3106 all sites)
Registered: 5/16/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:45 AM
quote:
And the military/industrial/congressional complex marches on......What we could be had we not taken this path after WWII. The money we've wasted on warfare for the past 70 years could have made this country a true economic powerhouse. What could have been.


The last great Republican president Eisenhower tried to warn us, but did anybody listen? Apparently not. The real reason for a lot of these wars is the money they generate for those fortunate to be able to suck off of the "military/industrial/congressional" tit.

Anyway, here's a link to great column by Fred Reed that's a "perfect example" of how the "military/industrial/congressional" intends to waste American taxspayers money. Of course, the "big boys" got to have their "toys" whether they are needed or not.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/DeadCarriers.shtml

[Edited on 5/26/2010 by sibwlkr]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:47 AM
Just what I was about to say, Chain. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about has done its work well. Win or lose, they still make money.

 

____________________


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:48 AM
You're right to add "congressional" to that formula, Fred.

What a pathetic bunch of people we have in charge of affairs in our country, both Democrat and Republican.

 

____________________


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6447
(6446 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:54 AM
quote:
You're right to add "congressional" to that formula, Fred.

What a pathetic bunch of people we have in charge of affairs in our country, both Democrat and Republican.


As Eisenhower's daughter recently mentioned on Bill Maher's program, the famous speech from which the now infamous term "military/industrial complex" came from, actually included "congressional" in the term. She stated that her father removed this portion as he decided not to offend congress as he needed their support desperately for some legislation he was pushing at the time. She mentioned the actual legislation on the show but I can't recall it now. But it's obvious that portion of the term certainly applies. What congressman or Senator doesn't outwardly support our military and love the jobs and money it sometimes brings to their districts? They're enablers as well.....

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:57 AM
quote:
What a pathetic bunch of people we have in charge of affairs in our country, both Democrat and Republican.
I understand the sentiment, but ultimately, what happens and what fate befalls us is due to the collective decisions of the citizens. Misdeeds could not long continue if concerned and engaged citizens took action in the voting booth. The fact that we don't have enough of them to make that difference tells all we really need to know.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17361
(17416 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:59 AM
quote:
quote:
What a pathetic bunch of people we have in charge of affairs in our country, both Democrat and Republican.
I understand the sentiment, but ultimately, what happens and what fate befalls us is due to the collective decisions of the citizens. Misdeeds could not long continue if concerned and engaged citizens took action in the voting booth. The fact that we don't have enough of them to make that difference tells all we really need to know.

x2

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 09:01 AM
quote:
quote:
What a pathetic bunch of people we have in charge of affairs in our country, both Democrat and Republican.
I understand the sentiment, but ultimately, what happens and what fate befalls us is due to the collective decisions of the citizens. Misdeeds could not long continue if concerned and engaged citizens took action in the voting booth. The fact that we don't have enough of them to make that difference tells all we really need to know.


Fuji, I don't think most citizens have any idea what business as usual entails in Washington. Now, with the internet, and cable news, more are finding out. But you are right. For most people, as long as their little nest is feathered pretty well, they are happy to skip merrily along while this country falls down around them.

 

____________________


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46657
(46658 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 09:04 AM
quote:
quote:
What a pathetic bunch of people we have in charge of affairs in our country, both Democrat and Republican.
I understand the sentiment, but ultimately, what happens and what fate befalls us is due to the collective decisions of the citizens. Misdeeds could not long continue if concerned and engaged citizens took action in the voting booth. The fact that we don't have enough of them to make that difference tells all we really need to know.


The whole trick is to change the game in DC. I don't know how that will ever happen. Take the most recent example, Scott Brown. It took a mere matter of days for him to get molded right into the typical DC mode.

Even if we "threw the bums out," can we prevent the new people from becoming a new set of bums?

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6447
(6446 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 09:05 AM
quote:
quote:
What a pathetic bunch of people we have in charge of affairs in our country, both Democrat and Republican.
I understand the sentiment, but ultimately, what happens and what fate befalls us is due to the collective decisions of the citizens. Misdeeds could not long continue if concerned and engaged citizens took action in the voting booth. The fact that we don't have enough of them to make that difference tells all we really need to know.


Indeed....Which goes back to the article posted. Very few individuals are actually fighting these wars or are directly affected by them. That's by design. Why were we not allowed to see photos of the dead returning from Iraq? Why is the idea of a draft not even considered despite the fact that we know our military is over stretched, why no tax increases to pay for the war? Because it would make the populace rise up and maybe actually vote for candidates who will question or debate continuing these wars.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 09:09 AM
Another reason is that so many people are struggling to keep their heads above water that what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan is of little interest to them right now.

That's another subject you don't hear much about these days. But those suffering through it haven't forgotten.

 

____________________


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 09:46 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
What a pathetic bunch of people we have in charge of affairs in our country, both Democrat and Republican.
I understand the sentiment, but ultimately, what happens and what fate befalls us is due to the collective decisions of the citizens. Misdeeds could not long continue if concerned and engaged citizens took action in the voting booth. The fact that we don't have enough of them to make that difference tells all we really need to know.
Indeed....Which goes back to the article posted. Very few individuals are actually fighting these wars or are directly affected by them. That's by design. Why were we not allowed to see photos of the dead returning from Iraq? Why is the idea of a draft not even considered despite the fact that we know our military is over stretched, why no tax increases to pay for the war? Because it would make the populace rise up and maybe actually vote for candidates who will question or debate continuing these wars.
Remember the last time we had a draft? The military was in a shambles during Vietnam. Hard to control folks who don't chose to be there.

But you're right on with the war funding issue Chain. And worse; large parts are not even included as budgeted items. Bush kept much of it "off-budget", and while candidate Obama said he wouldn't, he's done the same.

Gotta give it to Ron Paul, he's the only one who has consistently said we must stop these wars, change our interventionist foreign policy, and stop spending like we have all this wealth.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11679
(12122 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 10:20 AM
They should include the cost of the Iraq war in a federal gasoline tax since we are really just fighting for oil. If people had to pay $15 - $20 a gallon for gas to the fund the war they would start caring in a hurry.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 02:02 PM
I've said it a thousand times here; if American citizens were confronted every day with the true and full cost of running their Federal govt, there would be big changes. The only way to do this is by enacting the all the provisions of the Fair Tax (Federal consumption tax).

Abolish the 16th amendment, set up a pre-bate for citizens to cover the cost of the tax on essentials, close the IRS, end all business taxes (which are just hidden and passed through to consumers), stop all investment taxes (which hurt economic advancement for all), and cease all Federal deductions on income, SS, Medicare, etc. Roll it all into one national sales tax. Which in reality we're all paying already anyway.

By funding everything Federal through a single tax that everyone encounters when buying anything, true transparency is achieved. Seeing the staggering costs, citizens will become a lot more involved in what happens in their govt, and politicians would have far fewer places to hide.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 02:13 PM
Going back to the original post, what can ordinary citizens go to "demand a debate?"

 

____________________


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6447
(6446 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 02:20 PM
quote:
I've said it a thousand times here; if American citizens were confronted every day with the true and full cost of running their Federal govt, there would be big changes. The only way to do this is by enacting the all the provisions of the Fair Tax (Federal consumption tax).

Abolish the 16th amendment, set up a pre-bate for citizens to cover the cost of the tax on essentials, close the IRS, end all business taxes (which are just hidden and passed through to consumers), stop all investment taxes (which hurt economic advancement for all), and cease all Federal deductions on income, SS, Medicare, etc. Roll it all into one national sales tax. Which in reality we're all paying already anyway.

By funding everything Federal through a single tax that everyone encounters when buying anything, true transparency is achieved. Seeing the staggering costs, citizens will become a lot more involved in what happens in their govt, and politicians would have far fewer places to hide.


Amen, Fuij. I'm all for a national sales tax!

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11679
(12122 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 02:26 PM
quote:
I've said it a thousand times here; if American citizens were confronted every day with the true and full cost of running their Federal govt, there would be big changes. The only way to do this is by enacting the all the provisions of the Fair Tax (Federal consumption tax).

Abolish the 16th amendment, set up a pre-bate for citizens to cover the cost of the tax on essentials, close the IRS, end all business taxes (which are just hidden and passed through to consumers), stop all investment taxes (which hurt economic advancement for all), and cease all Federal deductions on income, SS, Medicare, etc. Roll it all into one national sales tax. Which in reality we're all paying already anyway.

By funding everything Federal through a single tax that everyone encounters when buying anything, true transparency is achieved. Seeing the staggering costs, citizens will become a lot more involved in what happens in their govt, and politicians would have far fewer places to hide.

Amen

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 04:51 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
What a pathetic bunch of people we have in charge of affairs in our country, both Democrat and Republican.
I understand the sentiment, but ultimately, what happens and what fate befalls us is due to the collective decisions of the citizens. Misdeeds could not long continue if concerned and engaged citizens took action in the voting booth. The fact that we don't have enough of them to make that difference tells all we really need to know.


The whole trick is to change the game in DC. I don't know how that will ever happen. Take the most recent example, Scott Brown. It took a mere matter of days for him to get molded right into the typical DC mode.

Even if we "threw the bums out," can we prevent the new people from becoming a new set of bums?


Public Financed elections would remove the big money corruption of congress.

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 06:01 PM
The way I see it is that the Iraq war should never have happened. It was shortsighted and stupid, Bush's main legacy. If we hadn't diverted the troops away from Afghanistan in the first place at a time when we were making major progress to send them to a senseless war in Iraq the war in Afghanistan probably would have been over by now. All of the Iraq war $$$$$ was a complete waste IMO. Afghanistan probably could have been done cheaper had we not stupidly diverted troops and attention when progress was evident. Now after years of wasting time in Iraq and paying little attention to the war in Afghanistan against those who attacked us I have doubts that we can ever win that war. We ignored AlQuaida and the Taliban and let them regroup and restrengthen in the region.

If we don't make noticeable progress soon we should just get the hell out of there, bring our troops home, and tell anyone who might want to attack us again that if we trace the terrorists back to their country we will turn it into a sandbox from the air!

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 08:20 PM
The draft is about the only way I can see getting the people in this country who aren't paying attention to wake up. Right now it's not their skin on the line. Believe me, I don't want a draft because our grandkids are getting to be about that age...but I sure wish folks would realize someone's father, mother, brother, sister, friend is over there dying for what seems more and more like a lost cause.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 09:16 PM
quote:
If we don't make noticeable progress soon we should just get the hell out of there, bring our troops home, and tell anyone who might want to attack us again that if we trace the terrorists back to their country we will turn it into a sandbox from the air!


Sounds like a plan. Let's win and get the hell out of there!

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 09:18 PM
Please define what 'win' means. Getting out means a 'win' for the soldiers to me.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/26/2010 at 09:22 PM
That's a good question, Ann, and one I don't have a concrete answer for. I don't think many people do and that's a problem. I'm a firm believer that we should start extricating ourselves out of the region ASAP. It's been a quagmire for as long as I can remember and I doubt there's much we can do to change that.

 

____________________

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com