Science Abuse Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 dig it 170 billion is enough money to buy every man, woman and child in this country a house. In Manhattan. 350 billion, thats enough to let us all retire forever. But with jesus on our side we cant lose! By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon wants the White House to seek another $99.7 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to information provided to The Associated Press. The military's request, if embraced by President Bush and approved by Congress, would boost this year's budget for the wars to about $170 billion. Military planners put the proposal together at a time when Bush is considering new strategies for the conflict in Iraq, including plans to quickly send thousands of additional troops to the war-ravaged country. Pentagon planners assembled the blueprint before Bush said he was considering that option. Overall, the war in Iraq has so far cost about $350 billion. Combined with the conflict in Afghanistan and operations against terrorism elsewhere around the world, the cost to taxpayers has exceeded $500 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The additional funds, if approved, would push this year's cost of the war in Iraq about $50 billion over the record set last year. In September, Congress approved an initial $70 billion for the current budget year. A description of the Pentagon request was provided by a person familiar with the proposal who asked for anonymity because the person was not authorized to release the information. The cost of the war has risen dramatically as the security situation has deteriorated and more equipment is destroyed or worn out in harsh conditions. The Army, which has borne the brunt of the fighting, would receive about half of the request, a reflection of the wear and tear the war has had on soldiers and their equipment. Another $9.8 billion is being sought for training and equipping Iraq's and Afghanistan's security forces. The administration's request for more Iraq money will be submitted along with Bush's February budget for the 2008 budget year, which starts next Oct. 1. The White House can add or subtract from the Pentagon request as it sees fit, and the total could grow if money is added for reconstruction costs. In a memo several weeks ago, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England encouraged the services to include in their budget requests projects connected to the broader fight against terrorism, as opposed to costs strictly limited to Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics have said that could be interpreted to cover almost anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinner Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 no thanks I have one already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 I'll take a second one in AZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Sorry, I'm not a fan of communism, I'll buy my own house as I see fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 It puts things in a sad perspective like all too many things these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zoomtard Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Sorry, I'm not a fan of communism, I'll buy my own house as I see fit. So giving money to citizens of your own country to make their lives better instead of putting the majority of it in the pockets of Haliburton CEOs is communism? Wow, who woulda thunk it!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 So giving money to citizens of your own country to make their lives better instead of putting the majority of it in the pockets of Haliburton CEOs is communism? Wow, who woulda thunk it!? No, but running people's lives, such as handing them a house such as Eric suggested, is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zoomtard Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Wait a minute... Hrmmmm. The government decides to help it's own people instead of WASTING money on an un-winnable "war" by making sure everyone has a house to live in? If that's communism, sign me up....... Please explain to me what communism is and why it is bad, I must be stupid. Also, please explain how capitalism is better and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinner Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Wait a minute... Hrmmmm. The government decides to help it's own people instead of WASTING money on an un-winnable "war" by making sure everyone has a house to live in? If that's communism, sign me up....... Please explain to me what communism is and why it is bad, I must be stupid. Also, please explain how capitalism is better and why. your missing his point. I see where you are coming from but what mike is trying to get out he doesn't want the gov to tell him what kind of house he can have or where he would have to live. He would would rather have the choise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 I tend to be a liberal but... A basic understanding of economics reveals that the dollars spent on a war effort dont magically disappear. Most of the contracts are filled by US based companies that employ genuine hard working Americans. Those dollars are then used to buy goods and services in genuine American stores. Granted there are many flaws in the "trickle down" system and the 80s showed us that it doesn’t pay to base an economy on it but to look it so black and white as the above post it is distorting reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Wait a minute... Hrmmmm. The government decides to help it's own people instead of WASTING money on an un-winnable "war" by making sure everyone has a house to live in? If that's communism, sign me up....... Please explain to me what communism is and why it is bad, I must be stupid. Also, please explain how capitalism is better and why. Step one: Read 1984 Step two: Accept the reality that communism is impossible because self interest always trumps the condition of the greater good. Step three: Rejoin conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinner Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto. Wait wait, where the fuck did I put my dictionary..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zoomtard Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 I would call no-bid contracts to Halliburton putting a large sum of money into the pockets of the CEO's. At the very LEAST it is a huge conflict of interest, wouldn't you agree? That aside, let's focus on the money that is being put to use over there. What is it accomplishing? Spreading democracy through force? Something sounds off to me with that statement...... Communism is flawed, capitalism is flawed, socialism is flawed, so what next? If you remember being in school when you were younger, communism and socialism were always presented in a negative light in comparison to capitalism, why do you think that is? How do you think capitalism is presented to students in other countries when they learn history? While I agree that utilitarianism is not something that people in today's world will embrace because of self interest outweighing the greater good, eventually the world's citizens are going to have to accept some form of it. Every empire falls, it is just a matter of time until the US does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Actually, I went to a good school that didnt put comunism or socialism in a "negative light" but certainly showed the flaws of each. Just as those flaws were shown with capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 I wish I wasnt at work and could actually engage in this convo. But Whether or not the war is justified is a completely separate argument apart from whether funding the economy with war dollars has a positive impact. The convo is about the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zoomtard Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 I am merely saying that the funds could be better spent, not that they SHOULD be used to buy everyone a house. The "house" in the original post was just an example to put things into perspective for most people. It wasn't to be taken literally (which I am sure you understand) The whole "war on terror" is about as useful as the "war on drugs." Why not put the money to better use? If you were to go back and check some history texts from the 80s and 90s, (when I was in school) you would see that socialism and comunism are presented as inferior to capitalism. Perhaps you had a teacher who presented the facts to you in an unbiased manner, but most history texts do put communism and socialism in a negative light. Anyway, I have to run, I will check back tomorrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted December 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 No, but running people's lives, such as handing them a house such as Eric suggested, is. Dickshine, reeeeeeaaad the post, you're a smart lad, you'll get it. Let me spell out the funny, 350,000,000,000 divided by 250,000,000.... Where are those houses, cuz I'll take three. The hell did I say anything about running peoples lives? I'm not one of the guys pimping the patriot act. All I said was "Dig It" iwishiwascool is right, communisim will not work, ant Trickle Down (aka supply-side) economics ALWAYS ends up being Trickle up econ. A great percentage of money spent on these wars does come back to the states, but not to it's people. The war on Terror is a farse. What happend in Afghanistan was good and justified...but then the US stopped and bought into lies. Now we're into Iraq, which is fucked. Afghanistan is getting more fucked by the day, and there's a pack of asshats wanting into Iran. Alot of money is being made of this war, hundreds of billions of dollars are coming back, and the top 3% of us are getting the vast majority of it. Our troops pay for it directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evan9381 Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 ok...maybe im missing something or doing my math wrong. 170 billion (9 0's) divided by 300 million (which is what we hit within the last month or so here in america) so 170,000,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 = about 565$ per person. where can i get a house for this price, or someone can explain to me what im missing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Advocate Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 This thread fails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted December 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 ok...maybe im missing something or doing my math wrong. 170 billion (9 0's) divided by 300 million (which is what we hit within the last month or so here in america) so 170,000,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 = about 565$ per person. where can i get a house for this price, or someone can explain to me what im missing Nothing, that's why I posted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Communism is just one step under a utopia and, theoretically, is the "best" operating system for a government, community, etc. Unfortunately, it's just as unattainable as a utopia for reasons already mentioned in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted December 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Communism is just one step under a utopia and, theoretically, is the "best" operating system for a government, community, etc. Unfortunately, it's just as unattainable as a utopia for reasons already mentioned in this thread. The main flaw in all forms of goverment is people. If we get rid of them, things will be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 I'm just curious. What would happen to property values if everyone were given a house? Also, if the govt just gave everyone a million bucks, what would a gallon of milk cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Ok, getting off the different governing theories for a moment... Lets set up a hypothetical situation. The US decides that it no longer wants a military, and dissolves it. Where does the money go that was originally earmarked for the military? Probably....the UN would get a large chunk of it, and the people that were in the US military are now UN soldiers. Yippie. The rest of the money would be used for giving every federal official another raise, or go to some dumbshit projects that we don't need. The citizens would not see a tax reduction of any sort. What difference does it make if we throw money at a (sadly, failing) attempt at bettering another country? Eric, I don't totally disagree with you, I just don't see the government doing anything to help its citizens in any way. We will continue to get taxed, no matter what goes on in DC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.