Obama Admits We Can't Have Guns and Butter -- Then Chooses Guns

[unhappycamper]

Obama Admits We Can't Have Guns and Butter -- Then Chooses Guns
David Sirota
Newspaper columnist, radio host (AM760), bestselling author
Posted: December 7, 2009 10:36 AM

During the Vietnam War, it became clear that America could not afford to simultaneously wage war on poverty and wage war in Vietnam. We could not have guns and butter at the same time, as Martin Luther King so eloquently noted in his 1967 speech at Riverside Church:

There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

The same is true of the Afghanistan War, which will now cost at least $100 billion a year, thanks to President Obama's massive escalation. That's more than the same annual outlay for the universal health care bills being considered in Congress. And you don't have to trust me to know that that kind of Afghanistan outlay means we can't have guns and butter at the same time - trust President Obama himself:

Obama Turns to Job Creation, but Warns of Limited Funds

After months of focusing on Afghanistan and health care, President Obama turned his attention on Thursday to the high level of joblessness, but offered no promise that he could do much to bring unemployment down quickly even as he comes under pressure from his own party to do more.

Rest of article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/obama-admits-we-cant-have_b_382511.html

[TexasObserver]

1. Recommend

[madrchsod]

2. during the 60`s there were jobs

even with hundreds of thousands overseas there were more than enough jobs in this country. today there are no jobs.

obama is funding a war on the back of a bankrupt nation. it is only going to get worse.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. +1

[dysfunctional press]

15. not just a war- a COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY war.

we are fucked in so many ways...

[SandWalker1984]

18. The war in Afghanistan is necessary for Unocal

They want that pipeline they've been promised for over 10 years. Why do you think Bush invaded Afghanistan in the first place?

[dysfunctional press]

19. you're preaching to the choir with that one.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. In our budget, War = meat and potatoes, healthcare and jobs= Cheese Doodles

They act like all domestic programs are a luxury,unnecessary, expensive and bad for you.

When you think about it, war is usually unnecessary, and it's definitely expensive and bad for you!

[luckyleftyme2]

8. and what would you do

the overwhelming consensus was to mount a surge in Afghanistan; the president certainly didn't jump into a quick response to his generals request for more troops. yes war is expensive-no I didn't want to put lots of troops into Afghanistan in 2001-but I like most Americans wanted revenge for "911".
Yes I think Bush screwed up,yes I was against going into Iraq;yes I was right in thinking two fronts would be a mistake!
yes I would like to bring our troops home! but what about sending a message to this bunch of rabble that you will pay for attacking us?
The president has to represent us all! and he is!

[Lorien]

21. The 100 "al qaeda" (not a group at all, BTW) left? Use intelligence

and a dozens of bounty hunters. No reason to spend billions just so that a few true believers like yourself can feel "safe" while jobless and homeless.

[KG]

4. with guns, you can steal the butter.

'War is theft' - Jacob Bronowski

[HughMoran]

5. disingenuous

1) Healthcare + TARP money for jobs creation is bigger than Afghanistan.
2) It's not possible for the Government to create the number of jobs we need, so even if BUSH hadn't stuck Obama with this LOSER, Obama still have to say the same thing.
3) Even if the US started leaving Afghanistan on day one, it would still be a huge undertaking that would require a lot of money to fund.

[mopinko]

7. and how many here would not give up their guns until the last?

seems like a lot of people here would do that if their personal situation if it came down to it.

[Major Hogwash]

9. The President has drank the kool aid that he made himself.

Yes, we can.

Yes, we can ignore history.
Yes, we can fuck up just as much as Bush.
Yes, we can send in more troops and make a quasi-faux excuse for it.

Can we get reelected?

Fuck, not now.

[panzerfaust]

10. Change you ... Change you can ... ummm Change you - WTF??

Change?

Change?: Need a penny take a penny, need two pennies - get a job.

Oh. Well. Right. Yah.

BUT if we spend enough, we will create more jobs in China. So - learn Chinese. Even kids can speak it.

Butter makes you fat anyhow and guns are good for the soul.

[xchrom]

11. recommend

[bvar22]

12. Chump Change.

Obama knows who butters his gun, and is repaying them with diamonds.

Gotta give him credit...He sure can speechify.

[leftstreet]

13. K&R

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. Less change than you can find in your couch. n/t

[aikoaiko]

16. For second, I hoped this was about repealing the Hughes Amendment to FOPA

Hope. Change. And all that.

[Overseas]

17. K&R. //nt

[Wilms]

20. Seems so. n/t

[waterscalm]

22. Senate may drop public option

Less money for health care also.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120804388.html?hpid=topnews

Senate may drop public option




By Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Democratic Senate negotiators struck a tentative agreement Tuesday night to drop the controversial government-run insurance plan from their overhaul of the health-care system, hoping to remove a last major roadblock preventing the bill from moving to a final vote in the chamber.

In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers.

The announcement came after six days of negotiations among 10 Democrats -- five liberals and five moderates -- appointed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to work out differences between the two camps on the public option and other pressing issues. Appearing in the Capitol with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the liberal faction, and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), representing moderates, Reid hailed the deal as a broad agreement that has the potential to "overcome a real problem that we had" and push the measure to final Senate vote before Christmas.

"Not everyone is going to agree with every piece," Reid said. But when asked whether the deal means the end is in sight after nearly a year of work on President Obama's most important domestic initiative, he smiled. "The answer's yes," he said. ....