In the third and final question posed to 2nd CD candidates, The Virginian Pilot asks, “After 5 years, what is America’s obligation to the people of Iraq?”
Incumbent Republican Thelma Drake gives a brief history lesson on Europe after World War II, citing the effect of the Marshall Plan in creating stability there. She also refers to her own trips to Iraq as well as the trips of others to demonstrate the progress that has been made there. Getting to the heart of the question:
Going forward, our obligation to the people of Iraq is to deliver this clear, bipartisan message from the American people: Make progress because our financial assistance will be coming to an end, govern your own affairs, provide for your own internal security and end the corruption and religious strife.
Democratic challenger Glenn Nye served in Iraq. It is because of this experience – he cites a specific example of the Iraqis not paying for programs despite having the resources to do so – that he is unequivocal that Iraq stand up:
We owe it to the Iraqi people to leave Iraq with a stable government that can take responsibility for the nation. To do so we must demand more from the Iraqi leaders.
Both candidates talk about getting out of Iraq. Drake believes that with continued progress, we will “win this war” and that a “majority of American troops will return home within two years.” Nye makes no such predictions but says that the Iraqi government has to “step up and take more responsibility.” This will allow “us to set a reasonable exit strategy and being to implement it.”
===============
Whoever is in charge of getting these articles on PilotOnline needs to be fired take a refresher course in online access. I have yet to locate it. It’s not in the same category as yesterday’s and neither this one nor Monday’s is showing up on the page specifically set up for the House races. With the election 21 days away, it seems that the Pilot would want to make it easier for its readers to get this information. Here are my links to the two previous questions.
Drake v Nye: greatest threat facing America?
Drake v Nye: restructure federal tax system?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
“majority of American troops will return home within two years.”
Gee, that’s an easy prediction to make. (Of course, they’re going to be replaced, but she doesn’t mention that.)
Our obligation to the people of Iraq is to get the hell out of their country. Now.
Our obligation to ourselves is to get the hell out of the other 130 nations where we currently have troops stationed.
BTW, I wonder if printing borrowed money to pay for all of these military adventures has anything at all to do with the current economic crisis?
I would doubt it. Even with Iraq and Afghanistan, our defense spending is way below the historical average.
It is the “mandatory” spending (entitlements) that have blown the budget. Social Security alone is bigger than our defense spending.
I should clarify that. As a percentage of GDP and of the Federal Budget, defense spending is below the historical average.
Mouse, make no mistake about it. I think we should eliminate the welfare giveaways, too. That just wasn’t the topic of this post.
Besides, at least the government passes taxes through congress for the welfare giveaways. For defense spending, they just print more money, pay their defense industry buddies with dollars at their pre-inflation value, then our dollars are devalued on the back end, because there’s nothing to back the paper. It’s the most insidious form of taxation.
That devaluation, Mouse, is the unseen effect of defense spending, and it has more to do with the current crisis than has been reported.
There is no distinction between money spent on social programs and money spent on defense. Why would a dollar of AFDC payment be tax money, but a dollar of defense spending be “just print[ing] more money”?
That said, I do agree with your assertion that the devaluation of our currency is essentially taxation. I just think there is no difference where the money goes, except that defense spending is constitutional and welfare programs are not.
AFDC was eliminated years ago. I think you mean TANFF.
Neither is comparable to Social Security, which is supported by payroll taxes. If you consider Social Security a “welfare” program, please tell that to the millions of seniors and disabled who receive it. Please make sure to include a pitch for why you support John McCain.
And please be sure to add the wacky part about Social Security being unconstitutional. It was declared constitutional before many of the seniors who are currently receiving Social Security were even born.
Thanks for the correction. Different name, same smell.
Social Security is supported by income taxes, too. In 2017, according to projections, Social Security taxes will no longer cover outlays. Either way, it is welfare. Just because seniors have been on the short end in the past does not change that.
As for it’s constitutionality, go read the ruling, Helvering v. Davis — it’s a joke. Here’s the core of the ruling:
The first part is correct. As unemployment does spread from State to State, as the unemployed in one State cannot buy goods from another, the workers in those other States lose their jobs, too. But while disability and old age may deprive one of his job, the job does not cease to exist, and will be filled by another. Thus, there is no spread of unemployment from state to state caused by disability or old age, and the General Welfare clause does not apply.
Remember also that the ruling was written under threat of court-stacking by Roosevelt, and he had the votes in Congress to do it. SCOTUS had to come up with some bogus logic to support it, and that’s the best they could do. As bad as it is, I’ve never heard a better.
Hey, MB, want to take a crack at defending Social Security as being Constitutional?
Mouse, I concede your point, that once it’s collected and/or printed, it’s spent, all as one pot. The distinction in my own mind (my own fault for not clarifying this at first) is that the Dems are the champions of the social program giveaways, and they also advocate taxes to pay for their pet projects. Whereas the GOP likes to position themselves as free market capitalists by opposing tax increases, but they like to spend on the bureaucrats with the guns. If it’s spent anyway, the tax rate is just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.