PDA

View Full Version : "...a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq"


Spence
09-09-2003, 01:13 PM
I thought some of you might be interested in the views of Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska and a highly-decorated veteran of the Vietnam War. Read on...

HARRY SMITH: Now, for a view from the Republican side, let's turn to Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.

Good morning, sir.

SEN. HAGEL: Good morning.

MR. SMITH: The president wants $87 billion for this continuing war in Iraq and partly for Afghanistan. Should he get it?

SEN. HAGEL: He will get it, but not (until) after having to answer some tough questions. The Congress, the American people, deserve to understand where this money is going, how it's going to be spent, what are our plans, how do we include additional allies, what are those responsibilities, and additional questions that were never really asked, certainly never answered up to this point. But they will be demanded, answers now. But he will get the $87 billion.

MR. SMITH: The country asks a lot of the people we send to Iraq. Deployments now, as we reported this morning, up to a year and even more for some of these reservists. Did the administration miscalculate the difficulty of this war?

SEN. HAGEL: Yes, they did miscalculate it. I think they did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. They treated many in the Congress, most of the Congress, like a nuisance. When we asked questions, we wanted to be helpful; we wanted to participate. And now they are finding out that reality is dominating.

The fact is, this is difficult. This is complicated. This is dangerous. This is uncertain. And many of us, long before we went into Iraq, called for the United Nations and many allies to be with us, knowing that the real difficult part would be right now where we are -- who is going to govern Iraq, who is going to pay for it, what are the consequences, not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan and the entire Middle East.

MR. SMITH: The president has had the support of the American people for this war thus far. But if Congress has to start choosing, say, between a prescription drug benefit for Medicare and the cost of this war, who's going to win?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, those are priority questions that we're going to have to sort out. But right now we need to keep this debate on the high ground. This is about the national security interests of this country. They should not be, these arguments, politicized. I think both parties understand that.

This is very, very important for the future of this country and the stability of the Middle East, and that's the way we should approach it. We have other needs. We have other priorities. You mentioned a couple. We have more than that. And so we'll have to work this out.

It is troubling that we're going to be talking about a $2 trillion budget deficit over the next five years. That means we have to grow the economy, and we have to all make some tough decisions.

MR. SMITH: Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska, thank you so much this morning; do appreciate it.

SEN. HAGEL: Thank you.

jsarno
09-09-2003, 03:27 PM
OK...I'm claiming an ignorance card here, and would like to understand why something is.
Why is it we can't just make more money to get us out of this deficit?
I'm sure there is a logical explanation, but it just seems like it could solve all sorts of problems.

Also, being a credit / collections manager, I deal with accounts all day long. If someone doesn't pay, then I need to get them / repo / sue (or all of the above). If they don't have anything to repo, or no check to garnish, I'm SOL. If they claim bankruptcy, I'm SOL. So when I apply these thoughts to the US, I try to understand what kind of a problem we're really in. We've had a deficit for DECADES! So who cares? Who's trying to collect it? What's the ramifications if it's never paid down?
(go easy...I did claim the ignorance card) :D

Spence
09-09-2003, 04:43 PM
If we print more money, which is what I think you meant, JSARNO, it will lead to hyperinflation. You heard of what happens every now and then in Latin America? That's what would happen to us. The more you increase the money supply the lower the value of your money--hence inflation. Prices skyrocket and no one knows the worth of anything. Under hyperinflation it is impossible for business to make any sound plans because no one knows what the price of a certain product will be worth a month from now. How can anyone charge for a good or service or anyone decide to pay for it if no one knows what it will cost in a month. The value of having a stable currency like the dollar is that people have confidence that a dollar means a dollar and people will accept it all over the country. [And in many other parts of the world, too.] Nothing is more guaranteed to destroy an economy than just printing money to make up for a massive budget deficit.

The problem with budget deficits, especially of the kind we have now, is that they are essentially unsustainable. They have an extremely negative long-term impact on the economy. The larger the deficit the more the government has to borrow from private sources to cover that deficit. We borrow from two sources, foreign lenders and domestic lenders. The more the government borrows from domestic lenders the less money there is for private enterprise to borrow. One of the reasons for the fantastic business expansion in the 1990s was that private enterprise could borrow all the money it needed to expand at very reasonable rates because the government was no longer running a budget deficit. The more money the government borrows, the less money private enterprise can borrow. That damages business expansion and puts other businesses out of work. And that leads to unemployment. The more unemployment there is the less the public has the ability to pay for other goods and services that sustain still other businesses. And that forces still more businesses out of work. And that's why our unemployment rate is now at a 20-year high.

The other danger of running these budget deficits is that we're borrowing from foreign lenders. In some cases this isn't a big deal, but it does give foreigners greater power of the U.S. government. For example, it is all very well for the U.S. government to talk tough with China on some issue or another, but the fact remains that China is now financing a huge portion of our current account deficit. China is buying all these Treasury bills and keeping our government afloat. Unless you think the U.S. government and people should be more dependent on the government of China, you can see how this is a bad thing.

That's a quick and dirty explanation of the evils of budget deficits.

Spence
09-11-2003, 11:58 AM
A few poll graphs follow...

Spence
09-11-2003, 11:59 AM
more...

Spence
09-11-2003, 12:00 PM
and more...

Ford
10-01-2003, 02:03 AM
I agree that post war Iraq has been poorly executed and has been flawed in some ways but in no way shape or form is it worthy of the level of criticism it receives. Scores of people that come back from Iraq say that they are shocked to see the way the media reports how it's going and that it is much better than portrayed. I'll trust the people who were actually there.

PennSkinsFan
10-01-2003, 10:09 AM
Right Ford. But, scores of guys and gals are also returning saying how disorganized the post war planning was and teh fear of sporadic violence is. The fact is, whether you agree or diagree with the mission, the post war plan was non-existent.

I just hope we stick to the commitment to rebuild Iraq, unlike our commitment we gave to Afghanastan. At some point, the USA has to show that its word is worth something. Right now, worldwide, our word means nothing.