Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah,,,, let’s spend billions on a war killing people and destroying things but to hell with any money being spent on health care and social services to help people.
Looks like government pensions and defense eats up much of the government spending. Health Care, and welfare seems to run neck and neck with pensions and defense.
Total Annual Economic Costs:
Global War on Terror - $145 Billion
Social Security - $608 Billion
Medicare - $386 Billion
Meidcaid- $212 Billion
National Debt Interest - $261 Billion
Over the past 40 years (1996-2006) the percentage of the national budget used for Medicare, Medicaide and Social Security has gone from 16% to 40%. Over that same time period, the defense budget has gone from 43% to 20%. Our mandatory spending went from 26% to 53%.. and this isn't a trend that appears to be changing. Our labor force is shrinking, and the number of retirees is increasing.
I'm not pro killing and destruction.... and I'm not stating that the $145 billion is being wisely spent. I'm also not so short-sighted to believe that doing away with War on Terror alone will fix our nation's fiscal problems. We're writing more checks than we can cash, and making more promises to our citizens than we can currently afford. Without large scale changes in policy we're on a path for financial ruin with or without the War on Terror.
War for the sake of war is never cheap for any one; however, had there never been an invasion of the North American continent, there would never have been the United States as we know it. Human conquest has always been a basic instinct. As much as I might hate it, when a people grow content, they become vulnerable. Only the United States of America has ever voluntarily given up what it invaded. Specifically, one can look at Japan, The Phillipines, South Korea, and Mexico. Yes, Mexico.
I opposed Vietnam, and I now know that had we not had Walter Cronkite in Hue during Tet, we would have shortly won that war and thousands of lives would have been saved. (Read General Jaap's strategy)
Last night, I happened to see a very well prepared tele-doc about the origins of the Biath Party in Iraq and it's ultimate goals from the time of its origins. Very interesting history that all American's for or against the war should know.
Let's win the war... it will save lives. Many may die to win the war, but as the famous Stg. Alvin York said when asked about killing 20 Germans, "I had to kill them to save hundreds," (parphrased). We may have to lose some of our people, including my children to save many more lives around the world.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomocox
Let's win the war... it will save lives. Many may die to win the war, but as the famous Stg. Alvin York said when asked about killing 20 Germans, "I had to kill them to save hundreds," (parphrased). We may have to lose some of our people, including my children to save many more lives around the world.
Only the historically blind can not see this.
And the currently blind miss the fact that Iraq did not present an imminent threat to the US at the time we invaded. 9/11 should have told peope there were more threatening enemies to deal with first.
"Let's win the war" is and will remain a sound-bite until it's clear there was ever anything to win, so far that seems more speculation than fact.
I disagree. Iraq was a daily growing threat. Sadamm was a student of Hitler and he had seen how to play the game. Had England, France, and even the United States taken action in 1938 as we should have, Germany could not have launched its invasion of Poland and set the fuse for WWII. Literally millions died because there was "Peace in our time" or in other words, no imminent threat. I encourage you to stop reading the tea leaves and pick up a few history books.
I disagree. Iraq was a daily growing threat. Sadamm was a student of Hitler and he had seen how to play the game.
This is B.S. Saddam couldn't even fly his own helicopters across his own territory without UN (USA's) approval before our invasion. He was completely a paper tiger by that point. Even Rumsfeld understood correctly that the invasion would be a quick operation. (It was the aftermath of the invasion that was handed over ineptly to the corporations.) Iraq was no threat to anyone at the time of the Dubya invasion. As has already been reported, Saddam's biggest problem in the latter days was scaring off another invasion from Iran.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomocox
I disagree. Iraq was a daily growing threat. Sadamm was a student of Hitler and he had seen how to play the game. Had England, France, and even the United States taken action in 1938 as we should have, Germany could not have launched its invasion of Poland and set the fuse for WWII. Literally millions died because there was "Peace in our time" or in other words, no imminent threat. I encourage you to stop reading the tea leaves and pick up a few history books.
And IF my Aunt Tilly had testicles I'd call her Uncle Tilly.
In kind I'd encourage you to leave BushLand and re-enter reality.
The facts I see are:
Bush planned an Iraq invasion long before 9/11
9/11 changed everything except Bush's jack-ass stubborness to invade Iraq regardless of what other threat(s) existed
Had he stiudied the situation carefully rather than rush into things he would've learned Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda and in that very narrow window was our ally and should have used him as such.
Cheney should have served as a perfect example to Bush of what happens when you pull the trigger before you're sure what you're aiming at.
the "funny" thing is, that the usual suspects that accuse the "liberals" of wasting tax payer money, seem to have no problem with this type of waste. I suppose if your stocks are rising, government waste can be quite welcome.... :-)... and people that die - well they are just collateral damage.
Yeah, it also puzzles me, why some blue collar worker would agree about the US spending billions in the war in Irak while money is cut from social programs that would beneit him much more
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
