Kucinich: Why Is It We Have Finite Resources for Health Care but Unlimited Money for War?
Kucinich asks a question that I would love to have the answer to. Why is it our monetary priorities are for war instead of the things we need here at home? What will it take for the government to say enough and pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Did the previous administration really stop to count the costs of a war in Iraq? Millions are still unemployed here in the U.S. and I have to wonder what could be accomplished if all the money being spent in Iraq were poured into job creation.
WASHINGTON – November 6 – Following a statement on the Floor of the House of Representative, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:
“Why is it we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war?
“The inequities in our economy are piling up: trillions for war, trillions for Wall Street and tens of billions for the insurance companies. Banks and other corporations are sitting on piles of cash of taxpayer’s money while firing workers, cutting pay and denying small businesses money to survive.
“People are losing their homes, their jobs, their health, their investments, their retirement security; yet there is unlimited money for war, Wall Street and insurance companies, but very little money for jobs on Main Street.
“Unlimited money to blow up things in Iraq and Afghanistan, and relatively little money to build things in the US.
“The Administration may soon bring to Congress a request for an additional $50 billion for war. I can tell you that a Democratic version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
November 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
So Did Obama or did Obama NOT say he would end the war in Iraq just about as soon as he took office? I wonder how many voted for him specifically on the anti war thing, who are now pretty disappointed !
I wonder about this because of the Ft Hood thing and that they were all getting ready to be deployed to Iraq and thinking,,, why send MORE when it’s about to end?
Sage Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
No, actually he didn’t. This is the position he took:
“I have also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that we would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months,” he said.
He was asked if he would consider the removal of all combat troops within 16 months, the Illinois senator did not respond directly. He said only that he will continue to “gather information.”SOURCE
November 7th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Pretty sure he said he would end the war. So much for follow through.
Sage Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Here’s what he said:
“I have also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that we would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months,” he said.
He was asked if he would consider the removal of all combat troops within 16 months, the Illinois senator did not respond directly. He said only that he will continue to “gather information.”SOURCE
November 7th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
But at 2 brigades per month, we are 10 months into his presidency, and still MORE are being sent…… See? I just remember much talk of people THINKING he would end the war. Perhaps they hoped because he’s a dem and that the dems so bashed on Bush because o f the war, that he would end it! Some changes, others not so much.
Sage Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
More aren’t being sent to Iraq. Afghanistan, yes, Iraq,no.
Obama always contended that troop withdrawal would depend on circumstances. Here’s one article about the latest:
The American schedule for withdrawing troops from Iraq is under threat after the Iraqi parliament’s failure yesterday to meet a deadline for setting up national elections as planned in January. SOURCE
I disagree….I think there are differences in the two parties, but sometimes not enough.
timesr Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
@AliSilver, “Which brings me to my favorite point….. there is no difference in the 2 parties.”
Do you really believe that Gore would have done what Bush did?
War with Iraq was on the Bush agenda before he was elected.
Sage Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Yes, it certainly was. It was on the agenda of the PNACers.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
I thought during the Ft Hood incident, media reports were that the shooter was distraught over being deployed to iraq OR afghanistan and the building he shot people in was full of troops preparing to withdraw to Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe reports were wrong.
Sage Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I think they are switching some out in Iraq but new troops are going to Afghanistan.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Back to Kucinich’s point: I have wondered why his very obvious observation that American politicians usually fund every Defense Dept./Military-Industrial Complex request without question, but automatically balk at spending for everyday Americans here at home.
The past 8 years of uncontrolled spending for many ill-advised, pork-barrel defense projects is what fueled much of our current deficit, but somehow no one mentions that.
And before anyone bashes my patriotism, let me cite such items as huge contractor no-bid permanent contracts made and/or maintained with no accountability. Also, the military has requested stronger vehicle protections to defend our soldiers better against IEDs, and we’ve consistently been told that the companies contracted to build those have not been able to keep up with demand. What exactly does that mean? In a true capitalist system, if the contracted company couldn’t do the job it had said it was capable of doing, the contract would be awarded to someone else.
timesr Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
@2fewfactsaround, “The past 8 years of uncontrolled spending for many ill-advised, pork-barrel defense projects is what fueled much of our current deficit, but somehow no one mentions that.”
I am happy to mention it. Way back when Bush was elected but not yet in office, a NPR news presenter referred to the StarWars project as a welfare program for GOP backers (1, it doesn’t work, and 2, it costs a lot of money).
Don’t get me started on the rest.
Sage Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 12:58 am
I hope you will get started on the rest. It’s hard to remember everything.
timesr Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
@Sage,
The GOP is having a heyday with Obama’s budget deficits but never mention that he has included certain items like the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budget that were off budget during the Bush years. Roughly half a trillion a year. (Even the CBO doesn’t know the actual cost)
Compare that with the estimated cost of health care reform, one trillion over a period of ten years.
Sage Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
That’s true. Not once have I heard them talk about how dishonest it was to exclude the cost of wars from the budget.
timesr Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
@2fewfactsaround, “In a true capitalist system, if the contracted company couldn’t do the job it had said it was capable of doing, the contract would be awarded to someone else.”
I think the problem was that the military underestimated the amount of body armor needed, not that manufacturers couldn’t fulfill contracts.
When demand increased, so did supply. After all, families were able to buy body armor for their loved ones in Iraq.
2fewfactsaround Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
@timesr,
After all, families were able to buy body armor for their loved ones in Iraq.
I had almost forgotten that shameful chapter from early in the Iraq War. Families having to pay for their loved ones’ armor. Why are Americans so oblivious or simply unfeeling about these things? Politics apparently trumps common decency in today’s America.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
WHOA!
But I could be wrong. I thought the ‘body armor’ was a specific new kick butt type that was not CURRENTLY provided by the military. The military issued their own,,,,,whatever that was. Since everything takes forever on a grand scale, the military BUDGET did not allow for this particular item because it was newly invented or newly in wide use. So families OPTED to buy them for their loved ones in addition to the ones provided. They were optional. BETTER, but optional. Remember when airbags WHICH ARE SAFE were only on luxury cars and now they are on everything? I think it is that sort of thing. I remember listening to a military mom on a talk radio show talking about how and where to buy them . She said the military would be incorporating them in the future, but they wanted their kids to have them now.
I think I remember this differently..
And of course I am NEVER one to defend the govt and their spending, but i think on this one item, that is how it went down.
timesr Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
@AliSilver, “I thought the ‘body armor’ was a specific new kick butt type that was not CURRENTLY provided by the military. The military issued their own,,,,,whatever that was. Since everything takes forever on a grand scale, the military BUDGET did not allow for this particular item because it was newly invented or newly in wide use.”
Here’s an article that says just about the opposite.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm
As I recall, body armor was supplied to the infantry but not other members of the military. Remember, the Bush administration never anticipated the insurgency, we were going to be greeted with flowers and kisses as liberators.
Sage Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Thanks, timesr. I didn’t have time to go looking as my brother came over for dinner.
AliSilver Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:04 am
@timesr, TY Timesr,,, the only mention I ever heard was this military mom on radio. So she must have been misinformed. Kudos to her for filling the heads of ever-how-many listeners with the same disinfo. LOL
November 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Here is another article that outlines the scope of the Bush administration’s miscalculation of post-war Iraq.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
AliSilver Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:05 am
@timesr, Methinks Bush Sr. said ‘it’ll go just like when i went in’ …… Because 2 invasions of Iraq, 2 similar outcomes??? What could go wrong? I mean honestly? hehe