$165 Billion More For Iraq, $2.7 Billion For the U.S.

[Mrs Behavin]

Congress is starting a debate on the budget bill, which has $165 billion in funding for the war in Iraq, but only $2.7 billion for emergency spending in the US. That's a 61:1 ratio in favor of spending your tax dollars in Iraq, rather than here in the US.

$165 Billion for Iraq, $2.7 Billion for the US

 

[SYN]

thats crazy... wonder how the public is gonna react

 

[Peter Parka]

Crazy how governments always seem to be quick to stump up money for wars and killing people but then have huge difficulty finding it to help people.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Wow that is some generous giving. I hope that funds for rebuilding is included in that money.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

$165 Billion for Iraq, $2.7 Billion for the US

That just seems so wrong. But then again war is a costly business.
Not cheap to maintain military personnel abroad and those ships and planes and ammunition don't come cheap. That's where the expenditure escalates in comparison.

Then again, it depends on the bigger picture which needs to be taken into account with regard to the action and investment in the longer term.

 

[Minor Axis]

$165 Billion for Iraq, $2.7 Billion for the US

Al Franken is running adds in Minnesota: We building roads, schools, bridges, etc ... in Iraq. This adventure is costing us big time. If you remember before we invaded, our illustrious confident leadership assured the American public we'd be in and out of there in 6 months. A huge expense with little to show for it.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Al Franken is running adds in Minnesota: We building roads, schools, bridges, etc ... in Iraq. This adventure is costing us big time. If you remember before we invaded, our illustrious confident leadership assured the American public we'd be in and out of there in 6 months. A huge expense with little to show for it.

Iraqi forces now hold al-Amarah. Didn't have to fire a shot:

 

[Minor Axis]

Not true actually--we invested HUGE amounts of money WWII and it basically spawned an industrial revolution. What people don't realize is much of the military cost exists anyway. In other words, even if the US was not in IRAQ, much of that cost would still be incurred. Also, a lot of it goes to creating and/or maintain jobs for US citizens. The problem is people such as yourself have a lack of understadning of basic economics and look at it the same way you do your checkbook--i.e., an expense is money out the door, when it actually is much more complex than that.

My understanding the infrastructure we are building in Iraq is money mostly going to contractors, expensive contractors. Try as you might, you can't lump it into normal everyday military expenses which are incurring huge expenses in a deployed state of combat. And your analogy with WWII is just wishful thinking. I thought you were smarter than that.

BTW--citing Al Franken destroys your credibility--you can't find a dumber media persona than Al Franken--he's a comedian parading as a journalist--he doesn't have the education or IQ to pull it off. If you're listening to him, you've got big problems.

So you say. I've listened to his show on Air America and I'd pick him over Norm Coleman in a heart beat. He's smart, honest and sincere having empathy with working class citizens although I'd never expect someone of your persuasion to say anything other than what you've all ready said.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Still, he's a comedian. Very good too.

 

[Alien Allen]

Lousy comedian IMO

 

[Charmer]

Wow! That's a generous amount to give the U.S. It actually is in the billions!

That ought to cover a few days.............then we skate for the rest of the year while we keep borrowing money from China.

 

[ssl]

Considering the flooding of late in the breadbasket... 2.7 might just cover those damages, the immediate ones, not including long-term effects. As I understand it, there is 4.xx billion or so for the emergency fund, should cover the majority of damages; however, the hurricane/typhoon season is here. So far, all seems quiet, but it is a matter of time.

 

[Alien Allen]

Considering the flooding of late in the breadbasket... 2.7 might just cover those damages, the immediate ones, not including long-term effects. As I understand it, there is 4.xx billion or so for the emergency fund, should cover the majority of damages; however, the hurricane/typhoon season is here. So far, all seems quiet, but it is a matter of time.

At some point though you would think that mother nature sends a message. yet we keep ignoring them. hurricanes,, mudlslides,, flooding,,, wild fires,,, etc

some of these are in pretty localized areas where it can be documented. why should i have to pay for those who live their knowing the dangers.

i feel bad for those in New Orleans who suffered. But I sure as hell don't give a shit about those who rebuild knowing they do so at peril.

at some point people need to be accountable for their actions.

 

[ssl]

At some point though you would think that mother nature sends a message. yet we keep ignoring them. hurricanes,, mudlslides,, flooding,,, wild fires,,, etc

some of these are in pretty localized areas where it can be documented. why should i have to pay for those who live their knowing the dangers.

i feel bad for those in New Orleans who suffered. But I sure as hell don't give a shit about those who rebuild knowing they do so at peril.

at some point people need to be accountable for their actions.

I was thinking about that earlier today. I came to the conclusion that semi-agrees with your position.

There are many places, such as the tip of North Carolina (one state north from me) that gets a lot of attention from Poseidon. Should they experience an issue, sure, maybe one or two times getting help from the government; however, the government should bail them out every single time. I think the third time should be a charm, in the sense that accountability should kick in.

One should always gauge the risk versus investment when deciding on a location to live. For example, if you lived in the northeast United States, you would have to adjust to snow every winter, if you were not brought up in such an environment. However, there are significant risks when dealing with snow, and therefore your accountability should reflect those risks. These smaller risks should not be handled by the government.

Of course, there are the more devastating issues, such as massive flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, and such, that cause widespread or very targeted destruction. These types of risks are slightly less predictable, and therefore the government should step in, but only to an extent, especially if there is sufficient reason to believe it will occur again. People must account for their choices.

One reason why I hate that woman who sued McDonald's for hot coffee - if you put it down there, there is an extremely good chance that, being unstable, may spill. If the label says nothing about the possible temperatures, but you had to grab it in the first place... common sense should dictate that it is hot. The lack of common sense is not an excuse for accountability.

 

[Maulds]

People say similar things about California. "Why live there with all those earthquakes and mudslides?" People also say it about the midwest. "Why live in a place called tornado alley?"

Where is the perfect risk-free place to live anymore?

 

[dt3]

What people don't realize is much of the military cost exists anyway. In other words, even if the US was not in IRAQ, much of that cost would still be incurred.

That's a very good point that's seldom made. Even peace-time military spending is insane.

 

[ssl]

That's a very good point that's seldom made. Even peace-time military spending is insane.

It would not surprise me if peace-time spending is greater than or at least comparable to war-time spending.

Research. :ninja

Also, a bit of the research performed for war-time can be adapted for other uses as well, namely the medical industry.:thumbup

 

[dt3]

And of course when a disaster happens, even if it's not in the budget Congress will send more money. Who wants to be the guy who says "Nah, let's not rebulid New Orleans"?

 

[ssl]

And of course when a disaster happens, even if it's not in the budget Congress will send more money. Who wants to be the guy who says "Nah, let's not rebulid New Orleans"?

Yeah, in that respect, Congress is :thumbup