|
Posted Thu, Jul 10 2008
Fuzzy Math - Candidate StyleElizabeth Ross ~ accountable
On its face, withdrawing from a war that is costing billions of dollars seems like the thing to do if one wants to free up funds for stateside endeavors. That is precisely what the candidates are saying, anyway.Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Consider a basic household budget that is highly dependent on credit, as in all the utility bills are placed on credit cards, presumably because all the money in the house is spent on the mortgage, food, car payments, and insurance, for example. Now, it's not hard to figure out that this budget isn't going to work very well for long. It also means that shutting off the utilities isn't going to save anyone money in that situation - it will just keep the credit card balances from getting higher. That's the situation we have in Iraq. We aren't spending money - we're increasing debt. Even getting out of the war will temporarily increase that debt by leaps and bounds, since it won't be free to get the troops back home. So when the candidates start talking about being able to afford programs once we're out of Iraq (which, by the way, they aren't really saying, since for now the only option being tossed around is cutting back on troops over the next several years), they aren't making an honest statement. But that's not going to stop the promises. Just on this issue alone, I've figured that I'll have to wait at least another four years before I'll end up walking into the polling place to vote "for" a president. The most I can hope for is a candidate who stays as close to the truth of the matter as possible. It's mathematically impossible to balance the budget in four years, getting out of the war will not free up revenue, cutting real - not deficit - spending is one way to free up revenue, and increasing taxes is the other. It's a depressing thought, but reality often is. Comments
|
The most commented
|