Clark would cut Pentagon Budget to fund healthcare

[RandomUser]

new york times:

------snip----
General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. "I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American," he said.

Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more familiar with — the Pentagon's. "The armed forces are a want machine," he said. "They are structured to develop want."
-----snip----

That doesn't sound like a warmonger to me. The fact that he's an ex-general and knows the Pentagon budget means they can't fool him and say they need more money for anti-terrorism while hiding their military funds.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. good

I read this article this morning, and Clark was right-on about this.

[Brucey]

2. This is great...

the more people who keep saying this, the easier it will be to get voters to accept the idea. Good for Clark.

[RandomUser]

3. Sheer genius!

None of the other democrats have mentioned this idea. And I never even considered it. But this is sheer genius.

Every candidate wants to fund healthcare. But everyone knows it'll be expensive. The other candidates have only proposed two solutions.

A) Univeral healthcare. Repeal the full taxcut. Deprive middle class and small business of their taxcuts.

B) Partial healthcare, or scaled down low quality healthcare. Repeal only part of the tax cut. Keep middle class taxcuts.

But Clark has figured out a third way.

C) Universal healthcare. Repeal only part of the tax cut. Keep middle class taxcuts. Make up the difference by cutting the Pentagon's budget.

Wow...I have to say, that's thinking outside of the box. No wonder he's a Rhodes scholar and economics professor. All those years in the military training an analytical mind to solve strategic problems is really shining. I knew and hoped he would impress me, but I didn't expect something so novel so soon and early in the campaign. He's changed the whole debate about funding healthcare. This guy is damn smart, every bit as talented as all the collegues who dislike him but promoted him anyway say!

[Terwilliger]

5. Excuse you?

Dennis Kucinich has long spoken of cutting the waste out of the Pentagon...especially so that education and other social prograams could get some well needed funds

You never heard of the idea? Maybe you should shop around for candidates.

[RandomUser]

12. Notice also

that it mentions he's familiar with the Pentagon budget, so there's no way they can give him the runaround.

I do admit I haven't been following Kucinich. I apologize if he's floated the idea first. But I don't think Kucinich has the same ability to counter every bogus budget argument the Pentagon makes about needing money for anti-terrorism.

Frankly, I wrote Kucinich off the moment he said he would unilaterally cancel NAFTA without trying to renegotiate it with Mexico first. If it's one thing I've learned from Bush, it is I want a multilateralist in our next President.

[Terwilliger]

16. so you ARE familiar with Kucinich

does that mean you're a liar?

NAFTA was a Republican wet-dream enacted by a Republican Democrat. If you're a Republican, please join another party. NAFTA is about globalization, and Democrats don't seem to care that the world's problems haven't really been solved yet. They wont be solved by usurping the world economy without knowing why it doesn't always WORK.

CLARK is a military general...if you think he's REALLY going to cut any major chunk of change out of the Pentagon budget, I've got a bridge in Florida for ya. I would remind you that an early claim of Bush was that he was going to "re-think" the Pentagon budget and save a lot of money. Clark is acting right out of the conservative playbook.

[greenwow]

25. Exactly!

if you think he's REALLY going to cut any major chunk of change out of the Pentagon budget, I've got a bridge in Florida for ya.

That is so very correct. When a man, who has dedicated his life to killing, claims he's going cut the budget to his fellow killers, should you really believe him? The man was violent enough to not only join the military, but he stayed in it for many years. Never forget that he is the type of person that is willing to kill.

[RandomUser]

26. Huh?

No, I haven't investigated Kucinich. I picked that up during the debates. That where I got my first impressions of them. I haven't been following the campaigns closely.

Here's my online candidate watch history. I saw the draft Wesley Clark thing on ABC This Week. Checked online. Supported the draft. Months later, he still hasn't entered by the time of the debates so I wrote Clark off. I watched a debate and decided to throw my lot in with Dean b/c of his energy and charisma. Then Clark joined and I switched from Dean back to Clark.

All I know about Kucinich was what I gleaned from the parts of the debates I've watched, and what people online like here say. I decided against Kucinich the moment he mentioned on the debate that he would arbitrarily repeal NAFTA.

I believe NAFTA has flaws. But the first thing I want is someone who will examine it and renegotiate the terms of it with Canada and Mexico. I DO NOT want someone who will cancel it unilaterally the way Bush cancled Kyoto. I want a multilateralist.

"Democrats don't seem to care that the world's problems haven't really been solved yet"

Well you know what? This democrat does. And I don't believe the way to solve it is to stick our head in the sand an cancel all our treaties like Bush without even consulting our allies first to renegotiate.


"If you're a Republican, please join another party. "

I'm a registered democrat. Are you actively trying to drive democrats who don't have your views out of the party? The way the republicans drove Jeffords out? I thought us democrats were more tolerant than that. And before you accuse me of being a conservative republican, I would never vote for Lieberman and I voted green once. But I sure as hell am not a liberal commie marxist extremist.

And, dude, quite frankly, I find your calling everyone who disagrees with your view a liar to be distasteful. If only there was anti-extremist, anti-conservative classical democratic party I could join. What do you call me? I'm someone who dislikes the conservative republican-lite democratic congressmen and also dislikes the left fringe extremists. Is there a party for me?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RandomUser]

36. I'm a

registered Democrat. And I've voted mostly democratic, occassionally republican (for women candidates to help the gender gap) and once green. So what the hell am I? An independent?

[diamondsoul]

21. Uh- hello? Cancelling NAFTA does not equate to unilateralism

in general.

If you wrote him off because he wants to withdraw from an admittedly flawed trade agreement...well I don't even know what to say to that!

You can't renegotiate NAFTA under WTO regulations, THAT'S the fundamental flaw with both agreements being in place! The WTO does not allow us to make changes to NAFTA. If you tried to do so, you'd negate our commitment to the WTO anyway. Basically each agreement forces the other to remain as is or you end up breaking the agreements either way. That's why they must be scrapped and a whole new set of agreements drafted.

All Kucinich says is return to BILATERAL trade for a while, in order to draft new agreements more beneficial to people everywhere.

Let me back up here for a second and see if I can make some more sense of what Kucinich is advocating. Ok, first you have to understand both NAFTA and the WTO agreements are essentially legal contracts among several nations. What's happened is that the WTO has articles which affect every other trade agreement entered into. There are articles contained in the WTO agreement which make it legally impossible to renegotiate NAFTA in any meaningful way. Doing so would break the WTO contract and open the door to legal repercussions against the US Government. The same thing applies in the reverse. If you try to change the rules of the WTO, you'll open the door to legal repercussions or invalidate US participation in the NAFTA contract.

The safest way for the US to address this problem is to withdraw it's participation in BOTH contracts and renegotiate new ones. If we follow the guidelines for withdrawal, there is no danger of legal repercussion (which would be paid for by the working public), and new trade agreements can be drafted during the 6 month notice period for withdrawal from existing agreements.

BTW, returning to Bilateral trade is completely opposed to unilateralism. If anything the WTO is a unilateral organization in the sense that the wealthiest corporations set the terms for themselves.

[Clark Can WIN]

30. Uh - hello, that uh'hellooo thing is one reason Kucinich isn't going

anywhere. I like a good deal of what he has to say but I sharply dissagree with major parts of his plan as well. (single payer health if you must know) All of this matters none because the country in general would never get past the way he comes accross on television. All the world is not DU and in the real world if God came down and handed Dennis the Democratic nomination the Republicans would flay, flambe and make ritual sacrifice of him dancing around the fire in a celebration ahat would take us at least 12 years to recover from.

I admire DK for having heart in his convictions, but for me that does not translate to actually liking al of his plans. I have a different opinion than he does, so sue me. Perhaps DK's positions on trade and NAFTA are worthy of consideration, if so I hope you will cheer and be proud (which is different than smug BTW) that DK played an important role in a successful strategy.

[diamondsoul]

47. Ok I got a little irritated, so sue me.

Seriously, take a deep breath and relax, won't you? Personally, I thought the "Hellooo!" thing was funny, and would have thought the same regardless of who said it. I admitted as much when all the fuss was kicked up over it. It's a silly thing to get riled about.

You're also wrong about what would happen if Dennis gets the nomination. The Republicans have NOTHING to flambe him with!

If I sounded smug, I apologize. That's not what I was trying to get across. I was disturbed by the comparison of Kucinich making A unilateral decision to Bush's total unilateralism. I'm funny that way, probably because Bush is the first person I've allowed myself to feel genuine hatred for in a very long, long time.

[RandomUser]

39. Interesting

You've obviously studied the issue more than I have. What I don't understand is why can't we work out a new NAFTA with Mexico and Canada before "withdrawing" from this one and entering the new one? Then we can skip the bilateral trade step, and not hurt our foreign relations by being percieved as unilaterally withdrawing.

I don't like the idea of us unilaterally "withdrawing" from a treaty without having worked out a new NAFTA first. Thank you for your insight.

[diamondsoul]

46. Ah, I see why you have a problem with it.

It looks like you're discounting the 6 month period after we announce intent to withdraw from those agreements. The bilateral trade most likely wouldn't last very long, IF we even wound up going back to it, because by that time we would have had 6 months to draft new proposals to advance. Does that make sense? I honestly don't see any President deciding to withdraw from those agreements and not starting work on new ones immediately, while waiting for the 6 month notice period to expire.

[RandomUser]

53. Even with

the six month deadline. Is there any reason why we can't work out a new NAFTA without declaring a unilateral "withdrawal" from the old NAFTA and activating the six-month deadline? I'm just afraid that the deadline will pass without us having a new NAFTA worked out. And then it will be percieved by foreign nations that we're withdrawing from the our agreements. This doesn't help our image after Kyoto, ABM, and ICC.

And the perception and image of us downgrading our ties with Mexico from NAFTA to bilateral trade might hurt us with the Hispanic vote.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. Yes, Kucinich proposed negotiating with Mexico

Kucinich's whole proposal was bilateral trade agreements with our partners, and of course Canada and Mexico would be at the top of the list.

It's amazing how often Kucinich is lied about and misrepresented.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. Clark picks up Kucinich's idea, and gets the credit

Ain't that always the way it is! Good, I hope Clark tries to steal as many of Kucinich's ideas as possible, maybe I'll vote for him. The more Clark follows Kucinich, the better.

[RandomUser]

28. Actually

I saw one of the pundits say this was their favorite party of the primaries, watching the candidates grow and take from each other and evolve. Kind of like how Gephardt came out with a health plan and now everyone has copied him and developed one. And how Dean was anti-war first and now everyone is copying him and coming out anti-war.

Let's hope whoever the final nominee is has stolen all the good ideas from all the other guys to make the best chance for beating Bush.

[roughsatori]

13. He said "open"

And you must think Kucinich is the Einstein of the group because he is the one who truly promotes this idea. As far as I am concerned anyone like Clark who "probably" voted for Nixon and Reagan is most likely filled with greed or BRAIN DEAD.

[Bertrand]

32. Enough with Clarks voting record

he doesnt even claim to have been a Dem until 1992, so unless 20% of your life being a dem isnt enough, cut it out.

[diamondsoul]

24. No, Kucinich figured out this way,

and in fact has already introduced the legislation to the House of Representatives.

Now in fairness to both men, this is one of the reasons I keep saying Clark and Kucinich are not so fundamentally far apart.

Kucinich WAS the first declared candidate to make this proposal, however General Clark has been advocating accountability and Pentagon budget cuts for some time as well. BOTH men have the knowledge to make these proposals!

Clark having been directly involved with Pentagon spending for a time, and Kucinich being a member of the Ways and Means Committee, each have the knowledge to back up what they propose.

I'm glad you're impressed with General Clark, and you should be. He's a good leader and a genuinely good person. It breaks my heart to have to make a choice between Kucinich and Clark because I know of General Clark from his military leadership. He is a rare breed in the Officer Corps from what I've seen. Likewise Kucinich is a rare breed in politics. Both men are exceptional candidates and exceptional people. I respectfully request that you take care in future to give credit where it is properly due.

That said, I have to tell everyone as a firm and dedicated Kucinich supporter, I fully expected General Clark to come out with this statement at some point along the way. Even with my respect for him, I must point out that he has now self-conflicted-

On his own campaign site he says "We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so."

And now he says "I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American,"

So which is it? Do we ensure every American has the same healthcare or not?

[Terwilliger]

31. ACK!

On his own campaign site he says "We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so."

That's fucking horrible.

[Clark Can WIN]

35. Could we have the rest of it too please?

"We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so. But all Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have fundamental educational skills and access to further educational development throughout their lives; that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life, as well as some basic level of financial security in his or her retirement. "


That was quite a hack job with the scissors there.

Sounds to me like he DOES want to make sure that everyone has the healthcare that they need, along with continued education and social security that won't leave seniors eating cat food. Sounds good to me.

[FlaGranny]

40. How did I

get into this candidate thread? Oh, I know, because it was about health care.

I agree, that was a hack job on the quote. It's amazing that there are so many people on DU who use the very "Republican" tactic of quoting out of context.

I can see how Clark doesn't believe we can guarantee the same health care and retirement benefits to everyone. After all, the top 1% will always have the money to improve or add to their health care and retirement benefits, so there will always be disparity.

[diamondsoul]

49. The "hack job" was mine, not Terwilliger's.

And I still see a self-contradiction there. I never said it was intentional or even necessarily a horrible thing, that was someone else's opinion of it.

As Fla Granny said in the other response to you, there will always be the extremely wealthy who can afford to up the care they recieve by having more money to spend on it, so that's a valid explanation of what Clark meant. That's ALL I was suggesting, that the comment could stand to be clarified, and particularly so when taken with his proposal for healthcare.

Can I just say that there really ARE a few of us who are looking at ALL the candidates with a critical eye, even though we've settled on one to back during the Primaries? I know there is a LOT of bashing going on, but it isn't coming from me, at least not intentionally. Consider that this is the first part of his platform Clark has put out in a concrete form, so YES people are going to look at his known statements and say "Well, hang on, he said this last week and now he says this. Do the two statements fit together?".

I say for the umpteenth time, I LIKE WESLEY CLARK! I'd vote for the man in a heartbeat with NO reservations at all.

[Uzybone]

52. Nice posting

so you are a pure propagandist as well? Dishonesty is a tactic we expect Repukes to follow, not one that a "pure" progressive like you should follow. Disgusting. You've exposed yourself.

[Donna Zen]

41. Star Wars

He has spoken out against it..

The difference between Clark and the other candidates is he has the gravitas to suggest this. Only an insider can turn this trick and find the support to enact it.

[Terwilliger]

4. Great left-wing appeal!

Let's see him do it...let's see him keep this up after he gets the nomination

[JanMichael]

6. Well SHIT! That's what I wanted to hear.

""I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American," he said."

He will be held to this statement should he win the nomination.

[roughsatori]

15. It is not a plan and it is not a promise

It is a weak statement that his supporters are attempting to use to foist up his already lessening reputation.

"I don't see why," and "open" sound very Arnold/Terminator to me.

"I don't see why pigs can't fly," does not mean the will.

[JanMichael]

17. You're prolly right.

That's why I said he needs to be held accountable for the things he says to us during the primary season.

[returnable]

8. He also said...

...he'd probably oppose the $87 billion Bush asked for.

Some war monger :)

[Brian Sweat]

9. The $87 billion isn't for waging war

It's for cleaning up after the war.



Or at least that is what it is supposed to be for. It could be Bush's mad money. You know about mad money don't you? That's the money you hide from your wife so that you can do the things she won't let you do.

[returnable]

10. I agree

I was referring to how it was being spun, though.

[Terwilliger]

11. said he'd GIVE MORE under certain circumstances

stop misrepresenting

[returnable]

14. He said he MIGHT

...give more under certain circumstances.

It's called being flexible. No one knows how the situation there is going to unfold.

I suggest YOU quit misrepresenting.

[Terwilliger]

19. You said he "probably" wouldn't support the $87 billion

So you have no problem with his lack of conviction.

He's the general, maybe he should come up with an actual plan, and suggest that to Mr. Bush.

[returnable]

22. semantics

He also said he "probably" would've voted for the IRW, and people have jumped on it as gospel.

Odd how some Clark bashers want to equate "probably" with "definitely" when it suits their purposes...

[Terwilliger]

33. IOW...he won't take a hard stand on anything

pandering :-)

[returnable]

37. Depends on what you're looking for

The hard stands I want to see, need to see, from a candidate are pro-affirmative action, pro-choice, pro-gay rights and so on. You know, the basic tenets of social liberalism. Clark falls on my side of the fence on those issues.

On terms of budgetary matters - what gets slashed, what gets funded, etc. - none of the candidates running has presented a plan that I could endorse 100%. I await Clark's proposals, and don't fault him for not painting himself into a corner just yet. I look forward to his participation in the economic debate next week.

But that's just me :)

[RandomUser]

20. you're misrepresenting

Those quotes were directly from the article. Try reading the article closely. Nowhere does he say increase the pentagon's budget. He specifically says to cut the Pentagon's budget to support healthcare.

As for sending more money. I believe the part that you're refering to is where he states he would oppose the $87 billion budget for Iraq, but might consider spending more on it under certain circumstances. No one ask for what those circumstances were. Nor does he say that money would go to the pentagon. I think that's money for reconstruction, if he was to increase the amount.

So he says CUT pentagon budget for healthcare.

In a separate conversation, he says deny the $87 billion. Give more more under certain circumstances (i.e. reconstruction, and not to the pentagon).

But he's NEVER said he would give more to the pentagon under certain circumstances as you're implying. It's an honest reading mistake that you made, I hope.

[CWebster]

18. Yeah, and Bush is a compassionate conservative

who will fund the no child left behind when he gets elected.

Clark says what he is told, and he is told to say what the voters want to hear. He has already admitted that he hasn't a clue.

[diamondsoul]

27. Um, once again, respectfully disagree.

General Clark has advocated cutting the Pentagon budget and more accountability for at least two years now that I'm aware of. This is not a shocking statement to those familiar with the General.

He does indeed have a clue, possibly more than most of our candidates do.

[CWebster]

34. yeah?

and the Clintons banked on health care. Dean achieved it. I'll bank on those with a record of achievement. Thanks.

[returnable]

38. He also has a record...

...of making serious cuts in social programs.

I'm not knocking the man for balancing a budget. But I am concerned about where his priorities would be. Too me, his record is by no means a slam dunk, either.

[MoonRiver]

50. Did you say CLARK has a RECORD of making social cuts?

Maybe I misunderstood you post in context of the thread, but Clark has never been elected! Therefore, how could he make ANY cuts to social programs?

[diamondsoul]

51. Dean achieved it in a small State,

with no bloated Pentagon budget and no ongoing military costs to worry about. The fact is any President following Bush is going to haev to choose between most social spending and this bullsh*t war. Your guy wants to send in more of our troops. He is not going to get anyone any healthcare that way.

[Skwmom]

42. Because Clark knows the Defense budget is full of waste

and will have the knowledge and credibility to do something about it.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. Like Nixon Going to China

He is the ONLY Democratic candidate who has any hope of getting this done, ESPECIALLY in a Thug Congress.

Good on ya, Wesley Clark!

DTH

[pmbryant]

44. Great to see some positive stuff about Clark here today

:thumbsup:

--Peter

[sandnsea]

45. Been waiting for that!

Now let me hear him say it over and over and make it a central campaign theme. And explain how he's going to respond to criticisms that it's socialism. (And I really want someone to ask him if he knows where the trillion dollars went, just for fun)

[MoonRiver]

48. Oh, stop, stop!! The Clark bashers don't want to hear that!

I sense they have tight blinders placed over eyes that might have to face facts regarding Clark's human decency and good Democratic credentials.