Lindsey Graham on the war, health care and spending
I think the video will speak for itself. It turns out that Senator Graham is remarkably accessible and open to engagement. I wish we had more Senators (including Democrats) as willing to take questions as Senator Graham is.
That doesn’t change the fact that I think he’s dead wrong on the issues. and it doesn’t change the fact that I think he knows he’s dead wrong even as he’s twisting out a lame justification in front of my camera.
The American psyche is a funny thing. We’ve got seriously skewed priorities, at least to the extent that we are more willing to blow people up than we are willing to provide them with access to fresh, clean water… We’d rather send our own men and women off to die in a nonsense war than send our Peace Corps out to make friends across the world. We’d sooner lie down with and finance tyrants and despots than build ourselves a better health care system and ensure our children are adequately educated.
Not coming out one way or the other on the Afghanistan plan, but why do funding health care and funding defense have to be mutually exclusive? I don’t think that’s the issue. During the mid-20th century we funded both massive national defense and massive social programs. The difference was a higher top marginal tax rate, and I think that should be the real issue.
Richard Allen Smith
5 Dec 09 at 12:14 am
I don’t think they do have to be mutually exclusive. I just think the priorities are skewed. we spend more on killing people – by far – than we do to reduce suffering. And that goes for either here, or abroad.
I’m not a pacifist. I think we should have the capability to defend ourselves and project power when we need to. But the balance is way off; we’re overkill on the military side. And we’d need much less killing power if we focused more on the power of benevolence. with the money left over, we could do some pretty amazing things here at home.
Mike Stark
5 Dec 09 at 12:57 am
Mutually exclusive? They’re both EXCLUDED by law. Neither should even be discussed at the federal level.
There’s no Constitutional authority to send taxpayer money overseas and there has not been a Constitutionally declared war since 1941.
I know, going back to a LEGAL government would be less interesting and provide for less conflict in the world but I can’t help but point out the obvious.
WorkingTommyC
5 Dec 09 at 8:07 pm