In case you're still on the fence as to whether the Iraqi war--which between the efforts of ourselves and the insurgents has resulted in the deaths of sixty thousand Iraqis--is worth it, consider this tidbit from the book "The 3 Trillion Dollar War":
The billions spent thus far by the United States in Bush's war, if spent instead upon domestic concerns, would have been enough to fix Social Security for seventy-five years or provide health insurance for every child in the United States.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at May 14, 2008 07:58 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingThat's just the sort of thing the Terrorists WANT! Healthy and economically-secure Americans! As long as there's even one healthy child or elderly person not starving in the streets, Osama biin Hussein has won!
The billions spent thus far by the United States in Bush's war, if spent instead upon domestic concerns, would have been enough to fix Social Security for seventy-five years or provide health insurance for every child in the United States.
Yeah, but good luck in getting Congress to approve all the money to go those programs to actually HELP people for a change.
See, it's subversive books like that that make Bush's job so hard. Which is exactly why he's decided to eliminate funding for the Reading is Fundamental (RIF) program. Because stupid people are happy people.
I don't agree with the war but I also don't thing the government should pay for our health insurance or retirement either. The money should be used for any of these and should have never been taken from the american people in the first place.
I thought the Iraq War was put on a "credit card" we owe to China and other countries? If thats the case we would never have taken out a line of credit for something as silly as health insurance or education. Sigh.
If I am correct about the whole credit card thing, I hope America has the good sense I had at 22 and change my name and address to avoid paying the bill.
I thought your problem was that the war was putting the country in bigger debt, and american G.I.'s were dying.
And
Would the money spent by the Democrates trying to win the nomination be used for better things?
"Would the money spent by the Democrates trying to win the nomination be used for better things?"
Why do single out the Democrats? Republicans also spend a lot on elections.
"I don't agree with the war but I also don't thing the government should pay for our health insurance or retirement either"
Why can't we all just be sick and poor? And just STFU!
"Would the money spent by the Democrates trying to win the nomination be used for better things?"
Steve, that, for the most psrt, is privately raised money. It's not coming from the federal coffers. The money for the war could have been used for much better, and in the long term, more beneficial projects.
Hydrogebn fuel cell research (bankrupt the Middle Eastern financiers of Al quaida et. al.)
Putting up wind turbines, tide turbines, solar farms.
Finance actual reform in basic public education.
Build an infrastructure that will last more than 35 years.
While I understand that many of these programs will upset the Oil and Coal, slash and burn crowd, well...TOO BAD!!!!
Social Security's not broken (the myth that it is is one of the Republicans' big triumphs this past decade or so), but dang, it would have been nice to shore up our infrastructure, help homeowners get out from under the housing bubble (which mechanism WAS broken, quite clearly), and get us all health insurance.
I have to wonder if this whole era will be remembered as the war that bought us into recession.
I have to wonder if this whole era will be remembered as the war that bought us into recession.
I have to wonder if this whole era will be remembered as the war that bought us into recession.
I have to wonder if this whole era will be remembered as the war that bought us into recession.
Geez, I wish that wouldn’t happen. I hit the post button and nothing seemed to happen. The end result is I get an internet stutter.
Silly Peter, how would fixing social security fill the coffers of Blackwater and Halliburton?
I don't agree with the war but I also don't thing the government should pay for our health insurance or retirement either
That's funny. Those socialists in Taiwan and South Korea don't agree with that.
I find it interesting how afraid some people (ahem MARK) are so against, you know, paying a little to help out our fellow citizens. I would gladly pay higher taxes a la France or the UK to have access to good healthcare, education and social services. In the long run, it makes for a better life for all.
Of course, if we all had better lives in the U.S., we'd have to, you know, stop shooting each other and stuff, and who wants that?
Ugh remind me to proofread before clicking "Post." Curses!
But surely all that was worth it to get Bush off the golf course?
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/7515712)
It's easy to say that the money could have done these things. The question that should be looked at is would it have done those things.
Looking at Washington DC prior to Bush's war, I would have to say that it wouldn't have.
Jerry, you are right. My list of "coulda woulda shoulda" is a result of being a Canuck who, as a result of his job, spends a lot of time in American truckstops.
The upshot is I hear a lot of denigration of countries that have (Oh the terror!!!!) socialized medecine, the metric system and gun laws. When I am told how Canada should spend more on it's military, I always ask "At the expense of what?", I am told that our medical system is to expensive, that private insurance can take care of it, and so on ad nauseum.
Things turn ugly when I ask how much the people making these comments pay for insurance.
But surely all that was worth it to get Bush off the golf course?
Wow. Just ... wow.
Way to sacrifice, George.
TWL
Manny: The money for the war could have been used for much better, and in the long term, more beneficial projects. Hydrogebn fuel cell research (bankrupt the Middle Eastern financiers of Al quaida et. al.) Putting up wind turbines, tide turbines, solar farms.
Luigi Novi: Or throwing it all into a giant fireplace, since that'll help the environment, the energy crisis and the economy about as much hydrogen fuel cells, turbines and solar farms.
A better bet would hybridization, electrical, and nuclear.
Elayne Riggs: "Social Security's not broken"
My best friend works for Social Security, and he would disagree heavily with you on that one.
Interesting point raised by commenter above. If, rather than going to war or fixing social security/paying for health insurance, if we'd just.. you know.. not collected those taxes in the first place, Americans could have spent it on health insurance, retirement, education flying cars, drugs or whatever they hell they wanted. Which sounds suspiciously like freedom to me. AND capitalism.
Freedom/capitalism and social programs are not mutually exclusive. A strong argument can be made that without social programs in place, capitalism quickly falls apart. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and freedom won't mean a whole lot if 90% of the population is sick, dying, unemployed, and uneducated. I'm not advocating pure Socialism here, but in a thriving society, those with power and money have a social responsibility to maintain the health of the nation as a whole. And that often means giving a helping hand to those in need.
The bottom line is that most people aren't responsible with money. So just not taxing them at all isn't a viable solution. Left to their own devices, the general populace wouldn't choose to "chip in" to build schools or hospitals, or adequately man police stations and firehouses. And most wouldn't be far-sighted enough to save for their retirement. It's sad, but true. And the actions of those people impacts all of us if/when they become homeless or start spreading diseases. So social institutions like Social Security play a valuable role. As could national health care, if we could make it work.
Careful, BillZilla... You'll start to sound like a Fair Tax proponent!
"If, rather than going to war or fixing social security/paying for health insurance, if we'd just.. you know.. not collected those taxes in the first place"
We didn't collect those taxes. The war was financed on debt.
Social Security collects a surplus every year.
If that money had been invested over the years, Social Security would not be "in trouble", whatever that really means. Instead, the surplus has been spent elsewhere.
Aren't any of you nice people and you dillweeds embarrassed that the United States is ranked 37th in health care? Even Cuba is ranked higher. Canada's health care is on a par with ours, yet costs WAY less than ours. In addition, when a Canadian gets sick, he doesn't have to reach for his wallet to help make a decision on whether or not to go to the doctor---he just calls and makes an appointment. (And there will be those who will say that the waiting times in Canada are twice what they are here. That may have been true at one time, but not so now. Wait times are about the same now.)
GeekBoy,
I read about an interesting study a few weeks ago regarding charity. The ones who give the most? Religious Conservatives. They generally practice what they preach about giving. Secular Liberals give less. Least of all though are the Secular Conservatives.
Interesting dynamic.
"Aren't any of you nice people and you dillweeds embarrassed that the United States is ranked 37th in health care? Even Cuba is ranked higher."
I am embarassed by that. I asked my brother-in-law the doctor about that. I figured it had to be just propaganda on Cuba's part. Nope. As far as he can tell, it's true.
Ah, the irony of it all...
We live in a country where our government tells us they are desperately concerned about our security and the security of our nation’s borders but somehow thousands are able to make it into the country each year to work below the minimum wage.
A country where the government will bail out the large corporation but sit idle while homeowners are dispossessed.
A country that spends billions to rebuild the infrastructure of a nation sitting atop vast oil wealth while our bridges and roads crumble around us.
A nation based supposedly on democratic principles that has somehow managed to allow the members of two families to hold the highest office in the land for the last two decades.
Excuse me while I go check and see if the planet is square because it’s sure beginning to sound a lot like Bizarro world.
"A nation based supposedly on democratic principles that has somehow managed to allow the members of two families to hold the highest office in the land for the last two decades."
That's a pretty misleading statement. The only reoccurring name is Bush. That's the only family that has had "members" hold said office.
Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence.
"Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence."
I am right. Because last I checked, running for President is not synonymous with being President. Only one Clinton has held the office of President. To claim otherwise is misleading.
"Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence."
I am right. Because last I checked, running for President is not synonymous with being President. Only one Clinton has held the office of President. To claim otherwise is misleading.
"Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence."
I am right. Because last I checked, running for President is not synonymous with being President. Only one Clinton has held the office of President. To claim otherwise is misleading.
"Ooopppssss! You’re right. That one of the current candidates is named Clinton is just a remarkable coincidence."
Running for office is not the same as holding the office and we have not had "members of two families to hold the highest office in the land for the last two decades."
And at the rate that Hillary is burning bridges in her own party; we won't have that happen.
Actually, Jerry, we will:
1989-1993: President George H. W. Bush
1993-2001: President William J. Clinton
2001-2009: President George W. Bush
4+8+8=20, 20=2 decades.
Toss in George H. W. Bush's 8 years as Reagan's veep, and it's even longer.
But back to the main point...
Th Constitution talks about "provide for the common defense," and specifically authorizes a military and the power to declare and wage war. On the other hand, it says "promote the general welfare" -- NOT offer, but encourage -- and does not mention things like the Departments of Education or Health and Human Services.
Some things simply should not be handled by the federal government. It simply does them horribly. I think providing health insurance and funding retirement (along with micromanaging education) are among them.
J.
"Some things simply should not be handled by the federal government. It simply does them horribly. I think providing health insurance and funding retirement (along with micromanaging education) are among them."
Well then you're wrong. You're not wrong because it's my opinion, you're wrong because many federal governments in many countries do it and get great results. We could debate the philosophy of it all day, but if federal governments all over the world are doing something well, then it is incorrect to say that it is impossible for a federal government to do that thing well.
By the way, I don't really care what the Constitution has to say on the matter. The Constitution was written with the capability of being amended for a reason. The Founding Fathers would laugh at people for saying that the validity of a practice should be judged by the precise wording of a document that was specifically created to be updated. Then they'd ask what Penicillin is and how soon Ben Franklin could get some.
Posted by Alan Coil at May 14, 2008 07:18 PM
(And there will be those who will say that the waiting times in Canada are twice what they are here. That may have been true at one time, but not so now. Wait times are about the same now.)
For the most part, you've got that right. The other thing you WILL NOT see up here are billboards advertising money back guarantees for excessive wait times in ERs.
I get the impression that, with the privitized corporate nature of health care in the US, actual health care takes a back seat to profits.
Jay Tea,
Your right in your math, but that's not the point he was making. It read like he had it phrased as if we had just had two members from each family and were already in the Hillary term.
@Jay Tea
Why not say members of three families since 1981 and count Reagan? Or members of four families since 1977 and count Carter?
Only one family has had multiple members as President in the last two decades. That's the Bush family. There is nothing suspect (in regards to the democratic process) of ONE family member serving two terms of office, and lumping the Clinton family in with the two generations of the Bush family is misleading, at best. The way it was presented in the follow up comment, confirming that Hillary was part of the initial equation despite the fact that she has not even won the nomination at this stage, is simply dishonest.
Regardless, why should someone care whether or not someone has had a brother or a son or a cousin in office before hand? What matters most is whether or not the person is the best choice for the job. Voting based on family, either for or against, is foolish.
Posted by Alan Coil at May 14, 2008 07:18 PM
(And there will be those who will say that the waiting times in Canada are twice what they are here. That may have been true at one time, but not so now. Wait times are about the same now.)
Where is this info coming from? Your right the wait times will not be twice what they are here it will be 4 or 5 times worse.
We do not have a LACK of healthcare or affortable healthcare problem, its more a problem in how that healthcare is handled or managed.
When you have a system that rewards patients who call 911 and actually have the ambulance take them to an ER (because heaven forbid the Paramedics tell the person they dont need an ambulance for fear of losing their jobs) with quicker service because they came in the back door. All for a tummy ache, no shit folks, tummy aches. Every single day this happens, over and over. People abusing the healthcare system because they know they can get away with it.
Oh and lets not forget that these fine upstanding folks dont have insurance, do they worry about how they will pay? No...They know all they have to do is show up and they will get their needs met at the cost of your health insurance premiums going through the roof, to make up the difference.
When you have clinics and urgent cares doing absolutly everything in their power to discourage patients from coming to them. Actually talking patients into chest pain so they can tell them "oh no you need to go to the ER" and guess what? its a tummy ache.
When you have specialty doctors telling patients who call them for help to "just go to the ER and get a MRI" you dont just get a MRI you have to have the whole work up. All that dr. had to do was schedule a MRI at the hospital but for some reason the lazy F#@% cannot find the time to do that.
We have all the healthcare you could want and need or think you need just for the asking. Nobody is turned away.
You can get turned away at the clinic
Your Internal Medicine Dr. can turn you away.
The Urgent care can wave you away or turf you to us.
I have yet to hear what Hillary or borack plan to do about this other than throw more money at it.
Where will this money come from?
Guess what? Your HMO just found another reason to jack up your premium.
@Pat Nolan: "We do not have a LACK of healthcare or affortable healthcare problem, its more a problem in how that healthcare is handled or managed."
That's false. Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.
@Pat Nolan: "Oh and lets not forget that these fine upstanding folks dont have insurance, do they worry about how they will pay? No...They know all they have to do is show up and they will get their needs met at the cost of your health insurance premiums going through the roof, to make up the difference."
Also false. The ER cannot satisfy all of your medical needs. An ER does not administer chemo or radiation therapy for cancer, nor can it provide a liver transplant.
@Pat Nolan: "When you have clinics and urgent cares doing absolutly everything in their power to discourage patients from coming to them."
Can you cite statistics, or is this merely anecdotal? If it's the latter, then it's not worth discussing because there's no basis for measuring it other than one's biases and imagination.
@Pat Nolan: "We have all the healthcare you could want and need or think you need just for the asking. Nobody is turned away."
Again, false. No one is turned away from the *ER*. On the other hand, there are many documented instances of people who are unable to obtain necessary medical procedures because they lack health insurance, or because their insurance company against all logic denied the claim, or because they were dropped from their insurance as a result of needing to utilize the services for which they've been paying premiums over the years. Some of these people die as a result.
Sorry to have offended you, Pat Nolan, but the reports that the wait times are relatively equal is not something I made up. It's been reported several times over the last 2-3 years.
And the Canadians get better health care than we do. And it's cheaper in the long run. And Canadians are generally better looking than US citizens.
Okay, that last one was not true, but I'm just trying to lighten the mood a bit.
Pat Nolan,
Wow. Just read the rest of your post. Wow. I don't know how to respond.
Posted by Bill Myers` at May 15, 2008 10:17 PM
@Pat Nolan: "We do not have a LACK of healthcare or affortable healthcare problem, its more a problem in how that healthcare is handled or managed."
@Bill Myers: That's false. Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bill, that may be correct but the issue here is affordable or unattainable healthcare. These are usually people who do not work (notice I didnt say are unemployed). Folks who do not have health insurance to begin with, some are incarcerated.
@Pat Nolan: "Oh and lets not forget that these fine upstanding folks dont have insurance, do they worry about how they will pay? No...They know all they have to do is show up and they will get their needs met at the cost of your health insurance premiums going through the roof, to make up the difference."
@Bill Myers: Also false. The ER cannot satisfy all of your medical needs. An ER does not administer chemo or radiation therapy for cancer, nor can it provide a liver transplant.
Another example would be an Oncologist sending his patient in after the chemo because sometimes, when your immune system is destroyed it leaves you wide open for a nasty secondary infection. These folks get the full work-up top to bottom and finally get sent home with an antibiotic. Their Dr. could just as well have called in an antibiotic for them to pick-up, he's their Oncologist
he sure as hell knows what can happen during chemo treatments, yet these folks are put through another ER visit and billed another ER visit because of a lazy Dr.
@Pat Nolan: "When you have clinics and urgent cares doing absolutly everything in their power to discourage patients from coming to them."
@Bill Myers:Can you cite statistics, or is this merely anecdotal? If it's the latter, then it's not worth discussing because there's no basis for measuring it other than one's biases and imagination.
No bias or imagination Bill, Just my word on the matter. Its where I work and hear it daily but Im not completly sure if Im able to give out that info without violating Patient rights, so for now you have my word.
@Pat Nolan: "We have all the healthcare you could want and need or think you need just for the asking. Nobody is turned away."
@Bill Myers: Again, false. No one is turned away from the *ER*. On the other hand, there are many documented instances of people who are unable to obtain necessary medical procedures because they lack health insurance, or because their insurance company against all logic denied the claim, or because they were dropped from their insurance as a result of needing to utilize the services for which they've been paying premiums over the years. Some of these people die as a result.
I agree Bill, like I stated:
You can get turned away at the clinic
Your Internal Medicine Dr. can turn you away.
The Urgent care can wave you away or turf you to us.
I should have started with something along the lines of:
From an ER perspective. We have now become many patients primary care physician.
Posted by Alan Coil at May 15, 2008 11:05 PM
Sorry to have offended you, Pat Nolan, but the reports that the wait times are relatively equal is not something I made up. It's been reported several times over the last 2-3 years.
No offense taken at all. I certainly dont think you made it up. I just wanted to know where you got that info.
Im sorry... I get a little passionate over the issue.
I bring up all those examples and I have many, many more (but I'll leave the endless pontificating to Mike..........)
but the real kicker is, thats the way it should be. An ER should never ever turn a patient away if we started doing that, I would start looking for a new career. I just wish ALL of healthcare had the same standards.
"We do not have a LACK of healthcare or affortable healthcare problem, its more a problem in how that healthcare is handled or managed."
I'd really like to know where the affordable healthcare is then.
Pat Nolan, the problems you see and describe aren't problems with the system...they're problems with the people in the system. Lazy Doctors, you call them. What's the fix for that? Accountability. Auditing. Self-regulation, or if that fails, enforced outside regulation. But because there are people that abuse the system doesn't mean that the system itself is broken.
Th Constitution talks about "provide for the common defense," and specifically authorizes a military and the power to declare and wage war. On the other hand, it says "promote the general welfare" -- NOT offer, but encourage -- and does not mention things like the Departments of Education or Health and Human Services.
Some things simply should not be handled by the federal government. It simply does them horribly. I think providing health insurance and funding retirement (along with micromanaging education) are among them.
It's magical thinking to believe that just because it's not constitutionally mandated, that the government can only perform a service poorly.
You accept socialized law enforcement. Waive your right to it if you want to fight socialized healthcare. Make the formal declaration you don't accept any law enforcement paid by public funds. That's your logical option. Otherwise, you're simply sheltering an industry whose profits increase from the denial of service. It's that simple.
"Some things simply should not be handled by the federal government. It simply does them horribly. I think providing health insurance and funding retirement (along with micromanaging education) are among them."
As opposed to whom? States/provinces? Municipalities? The latter can hardly manage to keep potholes filled, never mind afford to handle really expensive services such as health care or pensions. States? Given the wildly differing resources, not to mention differences in cost of living and tax bases, it makes for an unwieldy patchwork system which could well see people moving out to get better service in other states.
>From an ER perspective. We have now become many patients primary care physician.
In Canada we can blame provincially-run (ie equivalent of state-run) health care screwups when Ontario - to name but one, decided health care was very expensive and the main reason was ... are you sitting down? ... too many doctors.
I'm NOT making this up, you know.
The then-reigning-Conservatives' brilliant 'solution'? Limit admissions to medical schools.
Even a lobotomized gerbil could see what a horrendously bad idea that was, so of course they put it into effect. Predictable - too all but those Republican-clones - end result? A bad shortage of family doctors which has led to ... well, see above. ER becoming the prime health care physician for many people.
As for having people take entire responsibility for their health insurance, pension funds and education, sounds great ... until one factors in the frightening number of people out there who are literally one paycheque (sometimes two) away from being out on the street and ... who comes up with these unrealistic ideas?
In regards to the earlier comment re: two families in the executive office. We cannot go back to Reagan or Carter because Rosalynn and Amy Carter have not run for President nor has Nancy Reagan or any on Ronnie’s kids run for chief executive either.
That Hillary Clinton has been a leading candidate in this year’s election speaks volumes to how we are choosing leaders in this country.
I particularly like the selling point that because someone shares a bed with their spouse, it conveys their spouses’ abilities upon them. Good luck picking your next surgeon or mechanic in such a manner.
I specifically like the ad about the middle of the night call to Hillary - however, I picture it as her handing the phone over to Bill because he’s getting a booty call.
(Now, if that doesn’t cause a few people to go apoplectic, I don’t know what will.)
As far as the medical system in this country...
Speaking as someone who is self-insured and suffered under ever-rising premiums, my understanding from the doctors I do speak to is that they feel pressure from HMO’s and are limited on what they can charge. Simultaneously, they complain about being crushed under the weight of increasing malpractice insurance costs.
Good luck with tort reform though since many of the elected officials are lawyers themselves.
Also, I point you in the direction of this cover article from March:
http://nymag.com/nymag/toc/20080303/
After years of emphatic silence, the erstwhile First Daughter emerges—and demonstrates that, not only is she a natural, but the Clinton dynasty could span generations if she's up for it.
Nice to see the beginnings of a Tudor/Stuart rivalry.
Pat Nolan isn't entirely off-base. People abusing ERs is a problem. It is not, however, simply the result of lazy primary care physicians.
When people are too poor to afford preventive medical care, they are at greater risk for catastrophic illnesses that bring them to the ER where they cannot be turned away. You and I thus bear the cost for treating these people, whether we like it or not.
It therefore seems more sensible to me that we should provide universal and affordable access to medical care. If the costs for those of us who cannot pay will be spread around to those of us who can, we should manage those costs intelligently. We can do so by providing affordable health care to all.
Women who are able to afford regular mammograms, for example, are far less likely to need radical mastectomies than those who can't afford periodic mammograms. Mastectomies are far more expensive than mammograms, and reducing the need for the former saves money.
There are other components to the health care problem which must be addressed, of course. People need to take personal responsibility for their own health. Smoking, drinking, overeating, and lack of exercise are all contributing to a populace that is far less healthy than it should be, and that drives up costs. The sky-high cost of malpractice insurance is another problem. Greedy insurance companies are another. And then to top it all off, you have fraud on the part of providers to contend with.
The government, the insurance industry, the medical profession, the legal profession, and individual health care consumers like you and I are all part of the problem. That complexity will make it difficult to solve, but solve it we must. Government-sponsored universal health care isn't the total solution, but increasingly I'm becoming convinced it would be a good and necessary start.
I saw that in Newsweek a while back. Impressive, huh? I don't really mind working until I'm 80, but some people shouldn't have to do that.
Wars can end - new entitlements are forever.
Ideally the money wasted wouldn't have been borrowed in the first place.
Americas debt binge has made my comics relatively cheaper but that is small comfort given the damage it has done to my business.
mister_pj: "In regards to the earlier comment re: two families in the executive office. We cannot go back to Reagan or Carter because Rosalynn and Amy Carter have not run for President nor has Nancy Reagan or any on Ronnie’s kids run for chief executive either."
Again, running for President is not synonymous with being President. That was your initial charge, that the office has been HELD by members of the two families. This IS misleading. Hillary does not even seem likely to receive the nomination, let alone take the office of President.
You say this is an example of how we choose our leaders... We haven't chosen Hillary. Doesn't seem we will. You say this exposes a potential dynasty. How can that be when only one Clinton has been elected?
And I say again: So what? What does it matter? Whichever candidate is most qualified for the job should receive support of the populace. I don't care who they are related to. If they're wrong for the job, I won't vote for them. If they're right for the job, I will.
I did not support Bush and I do not support Hillary. But if a candidate emerges that just happens to be the cousin or uncle or daughter of a former President, AND they are the best candidate for the job, only a fool would object to their nomination.
Oh... gosh. I see now!
You’re right, right as rain.
How foolish of me, I stand corrected. It makes perfect sense to now... in a nation with over 304 million people it wouldn’t be anything other than coincidence if the best and the brightest were related through marriage or blood.
Just a quick historical review: Of the 42 men who've been president, only eight have been related: John Adams & John Quincey Adams (father and son); William Henry Harrison & Benjamin Harrison (grandfather and grandson); Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt (distant cousins); George Bush & George W. Bush (father & son). And in all of these cases one or more non-related people served as president in the interim.
Had George W. directly succeeded his father, then maybe you'd consider it a dynasty (though, personally, I think you'd need to have at least three consecutive members of the same family to make it that. E.G. if we'd had John F. Kennedy, 1961-1969; Robert F. Kennedy, 1969-1977; Teddy Kennedy, 1977-1985, that would have been a dynasty (In fact, my high school history teacher cited fear of such a dynasty as a possible motivation for JFK's assassination).
Even if Hillary Clinton wins the election, it would not give us competing Bush/Clinton dynasties. It would just be an interesting historical footnote.
On the other hand, if say, Hillary were elected and subsequently succeeded by, say, Jeb Bush, who was succeeded by, say, Roger Clinton, followed by, one of the twins, followed by Chelsea, followed by the other twin, then we'd have two competing family dynasties trading the White House every four or eight years. But that's not likely to happen, because that presupposes A) all those people would want to be president; and B) they'd all get elected. Members of the Clinton and Bush families aren't the only ones with designs on the office, after all.
Again, we're not dealing with any dynasties. A son elected eight year after his father is not a dynasty. Nor would would we have competing dynasties if the wife of the man who served as president between their terms is elected this year. We'd just have some interesting historical footnotes.
Yes, even if Hillary doesn't win the election (and it seems unlikely she'll even get the nomination), we'll still have had members of two families in the White House for 20 years. So what? Members of two families were previously in the White House for 20 years, but no one called that a dynasty (or dynasties). The two families were the Roosevelt and Truman families. True, there was only one member of each family in the White House, but it's still 20 years between two families (FDR 1933-1945; Truman, 1945-1953).
Another instance of two families trading the White House (though this only covered 12 years) took place between 1885 and 1897. We had Grover Cleveland (1885-1889); Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893); and Grover Cleveland (1893-1897). Again, nothing more than two historical footnotes: Cleveland was the only president elected to two non-consecutive terms (which is why Bush is the 43rd president, even though he's only the 42nd man to hold the office); and Harrison was the grandson of a former president.
Again, even though members of the Bush and Clinton families will have been in office for 20 years when George W. leaves the White House, we're not dealing with any dynasties.
Even so, it's time for a change. Which is why I'm the presidential candidate for the Good For Nothing Party. Our slogan: "First there was Bush. Then there was Clinton. Then there was Bush. This time, why not the worst?"
Rick
mister_pj: "How foolish of me, I stand corrected. It makes perfect sense to now... in a nation with over 304 million people it wouldn’t be anything other than coincidence if the best and the brightest were related through marriage or blood."
You do stand corrected. And now you're trying to shift the argument into something that you did not say before. The criteria you advanced was very clear. That members of two families had actually attained the office of President and that multiple members of each family must be part of the equation. Otherwise, we can simply goes back to my earlier point that we'll have had 3 families since 1981 or 4 families since 1977. And you've made it quite clear that this is not what you were talking about.
You're saying it can't be coincidence? Well, certainly an individual without a degree of power, wealth and political experience is less likely to be able to get as far as Hillary. So Hillary's connections and history stand in her favor. But since she's not even likely to win the nomination, let alone the Presidential race, it doesn't really matter. Whatever benefits she has aren't enough. If there was truly something sinister about this, as you imply, I'd think she'd... I dunno... be able to win the nomination?
Rick Keating: "Yes, even if Hillary doesn't win the election (and it seems unlikely she'll even get the nomination), we'll still have had members of two families in the White House for 20 years."
Of course. But then that simply goes back to my earlier point that we'll have had 3 families since 1981 or 4 families since 1977. And that's not what Mister PJ was talking about. Mister PJ has made it clear that his criteria is:
A: Members of two families have HELD office.
B: Multiple members of EACH family must be involved.
Unless Hilliary actually wins the race for President, Mister PJ's statements do not meet his own criteria.
Only sixty thousand? Seems on the extreme low end of the estimates.
I said: "Yes, even if Hillary doesn't win the election (and it seems unlikely she'll even get the nomination), we'll still have had members of two families in the White House for 20 years."
L. Walker said: "Of course. But then that simply goes back to my earlier point that we'll have had 3 families since 1981 or 4 families since 1977. And that's not what Mister PJ was talking about..."
Maybe you didn't read everything I wrote, because immediately after the quoted sentence, I wrote this: "So what? Members of two families were previously in the White House for 20 years, but no one called that a dynasty (or dynasties)."
Note the key words "so what?". The whole point of my post is that any talk about dynasties involving the Bush and/or Clinton families is premature.
Even if Hillary got elected.
Rick
@Rick Keating
I read your entire post. I didn't disagree with any of it. That's why I didn't comment on it any part except the one. By the criteria set forth by the original poster, there will not have been two families in the White House for the last 20 years.
You're argument is certainly 100% correct. I don't think anything in my response to you suggested otherwise.
It isn't the Government's responsibility to provide ANYONE with healthcare. Healthcare is not a right. That is unfortunate, but it is True. I have to pay for my own AND my employees. My tax money should not pay for anyone else.
Democrats started SS they need to fix it. Again without MY money.
Where people heathier than us live, the government takes responsibility for healthcare, and they pay as little as a half per citizens as the US pays.
It's unfortunate that you're protecting a system in which the healthcare industry increases profits by denying service, but it's True.
Gram, the idea that the government isn't responsible for health care isn't a fact, it's a subjective opinion. It is, however, a documented fact when indigent people have a medical emergency, the cost of their treatment in the hospital E.D. is passed along to you, me, and everyone else who can afford to pay.
As a businessman, I'm sure you'd agree that we should not spend money unintelligently. Yet we are doing just that with our current health care system. We'll pay for someone's emergency care in the form of increased health care costs -- but we won't pool our money together as taxpayers in order to provide universal basic health care that could reduce the number of catastrophic illnesses.
It is unrealistic for us to believe that we can any longer be a society of "rugged individualists." We are too interdependent today. I don't know what kind of business you run, or how much money you have. But consider this: there are a frightening number of documented instances where successful entrpreneurs -- small businessmen, not Bill Gates types -- have lost EVERYTHING because of a catastrophic health event. How is THAT healthy for our overall economy? How is that situation sustainable over the long term?
Gram, I do agree with Bill's points stated above, but there is also one more thing to point out. You are right that it is not fair that you have to bear the brunt of the costs healthcare insurance expenses for your employees and yourself. So, wouldn't make more sense for the government to take over the responsibility? Wouldn't it be better to get employers out of having to provide insurance as a benefit?
L. Walker said "I read your entire post. I didn't disagree with any of it."
Then maybe I misinterpreted your reply. I got the impression that you'd stated I'd somehow missed the underlying fact that no dynasty exists with regard to either the Bush or Clinton families. And/or that I'd agreed with Mister PJ's position because I acknowledged that by Jan. 2009 there would have been Bushes and Clintons in the White House for 20 years.
But it seems we're on the same page after all.
Rick
I've heard this argument a lot (i.e., the money spent on the war could have been spent on something else). But an awful lot of that money was borrowed, wasn't it? Would the U.S. have borrowed money to pay for healthcare and the like? Would the U.S. put itself into debt to pay for social security?
The implication that the borrowed money could have been spent on something else doesn't make sense to me, because otherwise we wouldn't have borrowed the money. Am I mistaken? What non-war-related debts has the U.S. been known to accrue?