« Grab a Mop! - hot YouTube Link | JoeTheMechanic's Blog | Justice Denied: Voices from Gitmo (ACLU Video) »
Washington Post: Money for War, Not for Health Care
The Washington Post Editorial Is a Lie
The editorial defends deficit spending for war, but not for health care reform.WAPO sums up its argument as follows:
"So, in answer to our questioner: Wars end, and the spending for them tapers off; entitlement programs must be funded in perpetuity."
This claim is false in numerous ways.
Deficit spending on these wars continues into perpetuity, as will interest on the debt. Of course, Americans maimed and disfigured by these wars will get "free" government health care for the rest of their lives. Then there are the costs of rebuilding these countries after their infrastructure has been destroyed. This rebuilding cost has no ending date.
Of course, there are also the costs of maintaining the U.S. military presence long after the shooting stops. Japan, Germany, and Korea are just a few examples. Apparently, there is no end to these expenditures.
Over the course of recorded history, war spending does not taper off. War spending increases.
The second WAPO lie is that "entitlement programs must be funded in perpetuity."
According this front page Washington Post story , "Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division," dated August 23 1996, "President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation yesterday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states."
"The bill ends the long-standing cash-assistance known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, abolishing an entitlement created 61 years ago that guarantees any eligible poor person can receive aid."
The Washington Post is lying. It is war spending that is funded into perpetuity, not entitlements.
The editorial defends deficit spending for war, but not for health care reform.WAPO sums up its argument as follows:
"So, in answer to our questioner: Wars end, and the spending for them tapers off; entitlement programs must be funded in perpetuity."
This claim is false in numerous ways.
Deficit spending on these wars continues into perpetuity, as will interest on the debt. Of course, Americans maimed and disfigured by these wars will get "free" government health care for the rest of their lives. Then there are the costs of rebuilding these countries after their infrastructure has been destroyed. This rebuilding cost has no ending date.
Of course, there are also the costs of maintaining the U.S. military presence long after the shooting stops. Japan, Germany, and Korea are just a few examples. Apparently, there is no end to these expenditures.
Over the course of recorded history, war spending does not taper off. War spending increases.
The second WAPO lie is that "entitlement programs must be funded in perpetuity."
According this front page Washington Post story , "Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division," dated August 23 1996, "President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation yesterday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states."
"The bill ends the long-standing cash-assistance known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, abolishing an entitlement created 61 years ago that guarantees any eligible poor person can receive aid."
The Washington Post is lying. It is war spending that is funded into perpetuity, not entitlements.
Advertisement
Nailed it.
October 25, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hoping soon enough they will realize the importance of giving fund to health care. People need this assistance rather than gun assistance.
October 25, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they BOTH are funded in perpetuity. Why shouldn't we fund health care? Why, O Washington Post?
October 25, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't over estimate how much Americans have been brainwashed with this kind of tripe including the Democratic Party with their underfunded "revenue neutral" insurance reform bill.
October 25, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the WaPo editorial is more an exaggeration than a lie. When a war ends, spending continues, but does trend downward over time. Conversely, the large majority of entitlements stay on, if not in perpetuity, then for very long periods. The ones most likely to be sacrificed are those helping the most disenfranchised Americans, such as the poor, whose votes and campaign contributions don't matter enough to resist the cost cutting pressures. On the other hand, entitlements that provide benefits to the majority of Americans (e.g., Social Security) may be modified, but there is no foreseeable end to them.
October 25, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, but I always understood that investment in health care, like investment in education, infrastructure, etc. paid for itself in increased productivity over time. Which can't be said for munitions or wars.
October 25, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we could stop subsidizing every conceivable corporate weasel on the planet and use that money to fund health care. After all, whose money is it anyway? Ours, collectively, ain't it? The conservatives and certain Dem corporatist hags consistently behave as if they possess some God-given right to line their own pockets with our tax and Social Security contributions ,(I realize that "contribution" is stating it mildly).
And whatever happened to Obama's red-pen budget pledge? We don't need to shell out more money. We need to reorganize our priorities. The rest of us appear not to misinterpret the meaning of "budget" so how is it so difficult for our illustrious Congress to figure it out? Answer: its not. They just need to be reminded that the rest of us still exist.
October 25, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink