For the Washington Post, there's no such thing as a war that America can't afford.
In an editorial today, the Washington Post takes President Obama to task for being concerned about the cost of the war in Afghanistan and the fact that it conflicts with domestic priorities. That the Washington Post, a knee-jerk supporter of war for empire, would slam President Obama for this is the opposite of surprising. Nonetheless, what the Washington Post actually said in its editorial is still breathtaking:
Mr. Obama repeatedly cites the cost of the war and the need to shift resources to domestic priorities -- though spending on Afghanistan is well below 1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.
We have been led to believe that official Washington is seized with urgency about long-term projections of U.S. budget deficits. Yet here is the Washington Post, downplaying the cost of the war in Afghanistan on the grounds that it is "well below 1 percent" of U.S. GDP.
Logically, there are two possibilities.
One possibility is that the Washington Post is saying that in the future, we can ignore any government expenditure or savings that amounts to less than 1% of U.S. GDP as being too small to bother about.
The other possibility is that according to the Washington Post there are two standards for judging costs. One standard is for war, in which an expenditure of less than 1% of GDP is too small to bother about. The other standard is for domestic spending that benefits the majority of Americans, in which a reduction of government expenditure of less than 1% of GDP is something that should be seriously considered.
Considering the Washington Post's view of proposals to reduce the projected long term deficit in the combined budget by cutting Social Security benefits by raising the normal retirement age to 70, it's seems apparent that the Washington Post's view is the latter: spend freely on the war, pinch pennies from America's working families.
I asked economist Dean Baker how much raising the normal retirement age would be likely to save. He said it would be about 0.7% of GDP. Thus, according to the across-the-board "less than 1% of GDP" standard, this would be too small to bother with.
But that is not the view of the Washington Post. In a front-page news analysis on September 24, the Washington Post took Congressional Republicans to task for not "offering solutions" to "tackling the ever-growing cost of entitlement programs" in their "Pledge to America."
What's the very first example of a "solution" that the Washington Post complains the Congressional Republicans did not offer?
"raising the Social Security retirement age"
Therefore, the conclusion is clear. The Washington Post wants you to work until age 70 before collecting Social Security benefits - or receive reduced benefits for retiring earlier than age 70 - in order to pay for the Washington Post's sacred war in Afghanistan.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Those who would reduce Social Security and Marginalize it as an Retirement Income are the same people who would have the US Military dominate the world.
The recent reports of China restricting exports of resources for manufacturing to Japan is a prime example.
The threat to our Nation is not Terrorists although to have you and your family blown up should be of deep concern of all good peoples, if at some point a Radical Nation or Group decides that they will interrupt the flow of Resources (the Somali Pirates demonstrate how this may be done with minimum resources) an entire Economy can be brought to a stand still and those Illuminati who seek to influence your opinion know exactly what will happen. People will go into the streets, burn, loot and kill each other. This can be seen in the Current Protests throughout Europe.
We will have the Military Draft reinstated, we will have Limited Strategic Nuclear Strikes, and we will continue to have Protracted Wars.
Currently we face Religious and Ideological confrontations based on Belief Systems of those involved. The conflict has been established and is perpetuated, the evolution will be to the Control and Flow of resources.
Unfortunately if Human Nature provides any evidence there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it.
Fight like hell to protect Social Security. Make your Democratic politicians promise to protect it, then hold them to it. Go all teabagger on their arse if they start to wobble and line up to betray us on this. Shun The Washington Post; it is contemptible. Shun all media outlets that work on behalf of Republicans to kill Social Security.
The elites at the paper can not imagine what it would be like to 68 years old, in ill health, and out looking for a minimum wage job, competing against younger, stronger and better educated people.
How many employers would choose the old person?
Norman Angell (1933), that was first published in 1910, before WW I.
Dealing with the financial and economic consequences, the books concern, what was a
warning in the first place, turned out to be true several times since then.
Norman Angell: The Great Illusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Angell
"Looks are deceiving." And so-are politicians!
Tongue partly in cheek. Only partly there are huge profits for education companies in extending the retirement age. Both in hinderances to move up forcing people to build more education credentials to push past the dinosaurs and retraining the dinosaurs.
Isn't it Obama's sacred war? He is, after all, the one pursuing it. Couldn't Obama end the war at will?
A true leader makes their own decisions and stands by those decisions. A true leader takes responsibility for his actions and inactions. A true leader takes responsibility for the behavior of his subordinates. A true leader does not blame his subordinates for his own failures. And a true leader certainly does not enlist the help of a reporter in blaming his subordinates.