It's more than the economy, stupid
If you listen to enough political commentary you will eventually hear the phrase: “It's the economy, stupid.”
This was originally a catchy line used by Bill Clinton during his campaign against George Bush The Elder, circa 1992. The underdog Clinton defeated Bush, and economic issues played out big in the win. The idea is that politics and economics are so tied together that a politician cannot afford to ignore economic issues, especially during an election year. The recent stock market crash, for example, is a key issue running throughout primary debates.
Now, flip from the stock market crash to the ‘08 U.S. Presidential Election.
The next big event on the schedule is the South Carolina Democratic Primary on January 26. On Martin Luther King Day there was a debate in South Carolina between the three Democratic front-runners: Hilary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. The economy came up regularly during the debate - it's the economy, stupid - of course it came up.
If there's one thing that will eventually drive lazy voters out of their fast food and television induced stupors, it's the threat of having to pay more for gasoline and food while most decent jobs are drying up and being replaced with an invitation to step into a Wal-Mart uniform - if you're lucky.
All three Democratic candidates had their ideas lined up to present to the viewing public during the debate. The spark of their respective plans were dulled, for me, by a fairly simple economic fact that none of them appeared willing to fully discuss.
The U.S. economy is not in trouble just because of a housing issue, usually referred to as “the sub-prime lending fiasco.” The U.S. economy isn't tanking because of high oil prices, either. Those are aspects of the larger issue that neither Clinton, Obama, or Edwards are ready to toss in the face of voters. And in the case of Obama and Clinton, judging by their response to certain questions, they simply aren't willing to face reality.
The U.S. is involved in an ungodly expensive war in Iraq. The U.S. has dumped billions upon billions of dollars into The War On Terror. They invaded a fairly stable country, bombed it into a disaster zone, at a cost of literally tons of money. Waging war these days is expensive. Soldiers are paid, poorly, but there are many of them on the ground in Iraq. Soldiers are supported by a military infrastructure, which costs money. They have weapons, body armour, and vehicles, require food, and need medical attention if they are injured (soldiers cost less when they get killed vs. wounded; both happen with some regularity in Iraq). Missiles, Black Hawk helicopters, co-coordinated air, sea, and support... yes, invading and occupying a country with no infrastructure costs money.
At the same time as America has been spending money on this mission, its President and his cronies have also cut taxes, usually to those in the upper earning tax brackets. Hmm, revenues go down, spending goes up and up. How long can that be sustained?
Both Clinton and Obama have said, repeatedly, that it's the Iraqis who now need to take control of their own destiny, take back their country and begin behaving like reasonable citizens of an emerging democratic country. Clinton said it bluntly: Iraqis need to take over for American soldiers and create a peaceful country of prosperity and happiness for all, as exemplified by their occupiers' homeland, the USA. However, this is the same country spending 275 million per day on the war in Iraq, according to http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home.
I suggest going to that site and watching the numbers spin on the real time calculator. Has that incredible amount of money brought basic services like water and electricity back to the people of Iraq? Afraid not. Definitely not back to Iraq's pre-invasion status. In March, the U.S. will have been in Iraq five years, with little to show for nearly a trillion dollars spent.
The U.S. federal government's spending habits have been likened to a credit card junkie who keeps starting new cards with no real plan of paying off the ever-increasing bills. Imagine what the U.S. could do domestically with the money it's dumping into an occupation that will not be easily resolved.
Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates appear unwilling to link the war with the failing economy. They're discussing the issues separately, for the most part, instead of treating them as symptoms of the same disease. It may be the economy, stupid, but it's definitely the war, too idiots.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
This was originally a catchy line used by Bill Clinton during his campaign against George Bush The Elder, circa 1992. The underdog Clinton defeated Bush, and economic issues played out big in the win. The idea is that politics and economics are so tied together that a politician cannot afford to ignore economic issues, especially during an election year. The recent stock market crash, for example, is a key issue running throughout primary debates.
Now, flip from the stock market crash to the ‘08 U.S. Presidential Election.
The next big event on the schedule is the South Carolina Democratic Primary on January 26. On Martin Luther King Day there was a debate in South Carolina between the three Democratic front-runners: Hilary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. The economy came up regularly during the debate - it's the economy, stupid - of course it came up.
If there's one thing that will eventually drive lazy voters out of their fast food and television induced stupors, it's the threat of having to pay more for gasoline and food while most decent jobs are drying up and being replaced with an invitation to step into a Wal-Mart uniform - if you're lucky.
All three Democratic candidates had their ideas lined up to present to the viewing public during the debate. The spark of their respective plans were dulled, for me, by a fairly simple economic fact that none of them appeared willing to fully discuss.
The U.S. economy is not in trouble just because of a housing issue, usually referred to as “the sub-prime lending fiasco.” The U.S. economy isn't tanking because of high oil prices, either. Those are aspects of the larger issue that neither Clinton, Obama, or Edwards are ready to toss in the face of voters. And in the case of Obama and Clinton, judging by their response to certain questions, they simply aren't willing to face reality.
The U.S. is involved in an ungodly expensive war in Iraq. The U.S. has dumped billions upon billions of dollars into The War On Terror. They invaded a fairly stable country, bombed it into a disaster zone, at a cost of literally tons of money. Waging war these days is expensive. Soldiers are paid, poorly, but there are many of them on the ground in Iraq. Soldiers are supported by a military infrastructure, which costs money. They have weapons, body armour, and vehicles, require food, and need medical attention if they are injured (soldiers cost less when they get killed vs. wounded; both happen with some regularity in Iraq). Missiles, Black Hawk helicopters, co-coordinated air, sea, and support... yes, invading and occupying a country with no infrastructure costs money.
At the same time as America has been spending money on this mission, its President and his cronies have also cut taxes, usually to those in the upper earning tax brackets. Hmm, revenues go down, spending goes up and up. How long can that be sustained?
Both Clinton and Obama have said, repeatedly, that it's the Iraqis who now need to take control of their own destiny, take back their country and begin behaving like reasonable citizens of an emerging democratic country. Clinton said it bluntly: Iraqis need to take over for American soldiers and create a peaceful country of prosperity and happiness for all, as exemplified by their occupiers' homeland, the USA. However, this is the same country spending 275 million per day on the war in Iraq, according to http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home.
I suggest going to that site and watching the numbers spin on the real time calculator. Has that incredible amount of money brought basic services like water and electricity back to the people of Iraq? Afraid not. Definitely not back to Iraq's pre-invasion status. In March, the U.S. will have been in Iraq five years, with little to show for nearly a trillion dollars spent.
The U.S. federal government's spending habits have been likened to a credit card junkie who keeps starting new cards with no real plan of paying off the ever-increasing bills. Imagine what the U.S. could do domestically with the money it's dumping into an occupation that will not be easily resolved.
Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates appear unwilling to link the war with the failing economy. They're discussing the issues separately, for the most part, instead of treating them as symptoms of the same disease. It may be the economy, stupid, but it's definitely the war, too idiots.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
