a better way to spend our tax dollars?

[ericlp]

Current Cost of War in Iraq = 250 Billion

I believe that this cost will go up by the time we are done in Iraq to around 5-600 Billion. I don?t think as long as bush is in office are spending will go down or we will be pulling anyone out of Iraq until after 2008.

So, with the total cost of say? 550 Billion, I?m being conservative here for the Iraq War. Not counting rehabilitating injured GI?s or rebuilding of Iraq and all the rest of the cash we are going to have to pony up to make it somewhat ?right? again after we are gone. This also doesn?t tally up the cost of say how much British or Australian has to pony up for this worthless effort?

What if we got the us government to build 100 million cars? I mean? You can get a stripped down civic or Toyota echo for less then 10 Grand they both get over 40Miles per gallon? Wouldn?t you think that if there were no profit evolved you could get the government to design a decent 40 or so gallons per mile car?

Heck I bet it you told Toyota that you had 500Billion CASH ? Could you get me a discount on 100Million cars? I would think they may be able to pull it off? But if you could get the government to build these cars you could probably get 200 or so million cars for that amount of money.

What if we did spend money on building reliable / high fuel efficient cars instead of going to Iraq? Would you think that by saving BILLIONS of gallons of gasoline do you think this alone would have solved our national debt? I bet we could have whipped out our dept for good and depending less and less on foreign oil! What if the next persident put this option on the table... Would you be for it?

That?s my take for today. Sorry it was so long?

Source:

There are 107 million U.S. households, each with an average of 1.9 cars, trucks or sport utility vehicles and 1.8 drivers, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported. That equals 204 million vehicles and 191 million drivers --- year 2003 estimates before the average gallon of gas goes up and over 3 dollars.

 

[Meuge]

How about increasing the NIH budget 10-fold?

 

[Stunt]

A better way to spend tax dollars is to create a massive state program to give everyone low cost, efficient cars?

First off, you'd be spending hundreds of billions to save just billions.

Secondly, the savings on oil would lower the global price (for every saving, you reduce consumption and demand), and global consumption will go up with the cheaper price.

Thridly, it's not the job of government to create products already offered by many companies who employ many people and offer products people demand and want to buy.

This would create a viscious cycle where government would feel they know what the market wants. This idea is wrong...the market will decide what the market wants.

 

[sandorski]

Someone would have to calculate the Fuel Savings and what not. The problems with this proposal is that it would never work, especially in the US.

Firstly, the dominant American philosophical view would see this as unacceptable Socialism and they'd be fundamentally correct. In a more Socialist society there might be some value to this proposal though, there could actually be a savings. However, cars need to be replaced, so you'd end up needing to replace these cars constantly, adding a lot to the cost.

Secondly, you just destroyed any Domestic Auto Industry. Even if you got them to make the cars, their Profit Margins would be cut to the bone.

Thirdly, it would take about a decade(estimate) to just Manufacture so many cars.

Fourthly, what if no one wants these cars? Are you going to force them to use these cars?

Fifthly, I'll go out on a limb and say "No", this proposal wouldn't eliminate any Debt/Deficit. You'd merely spend $100'sbillions on crappy cars.


The best way to "force" fuel savings is to legislate Fuel Consumption standards. Let the Manufacturers worry about styling, Product Price, etc, but force them to keep Fuel Consumption in line.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Stunt
A better way to spend tax dollars is to create a massive state program to give everyone low cost, efficient cars?

First off, you'd be spending hundreds of billions to save just billions.

Secondly, the savings on oil would lower the global price (for every saving, you reduce consumption and demand), and global consumption will go up with the cheaper price.

Thridly, it's not the job of government to create products already offered by many companies who employ many people and offer products people demand and want to buy.

This would create a viscious cycle where government would feel they know what the market wants. This idea is wrong...the market will decide what the market wants.

It's also not the "job of government" to start wars based on lies and false intelliegence, yet I don't see you complaining about that. I'd rather see that money spent on just about ANYthing else. Any harebrained idea will do.

 

[rahvin]

To put it in perspective, the amount of money spent on Iraq since the invasion is more than is spent repairing and rebuilding highways and interstates in this country over 6 years. Had that money been spent on infastructure millions of people would have been employed in the good ol' USA rebuilding and rehabilitating the roads ALL of us drive on every single day. The economic stimulous in this country would have been powerful and we'd all have newer roads and fewer potholes.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's also not the "job of government" to start wars based on lies and false intelliegence, yet I don't see you complaining about that. I'd rather see that money spent on just about ANYthing else. Any harebrained idea will do.

I agree on your point about the Iraq war...but not with the last part.
The money would have been best NOT spent, have you seen the deficit lately?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: rahvin
To put it in perspective, the amount of money spent on Iraq since the invasion is more than is spent repairing and rebuilding highways and interstates in this country over 6 years. Had that money been spent on infastructure millions of people would have been employed in the good ol' USA rebuilding and rehabilitating the roads ALL of us drive on every single day. The economic stimulous in this country would have been powerful and we'd all have newer roads and fewer potholes.

The War In Iraq Costs
$232,119,967,375

Instead, we could have hired
4,022,667
additional public school teachers for one year.




The War In Iraq Costs
$232,120,014,663

Instead, we could have insured
138,994,020
children for one year.



The War In Iraq Costs
$232,120,048,936

Instead, we could have provided
11,252,668
students four-year scholarships at public universities.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's also not the "job of government" to start wars based on lies and false intelliegence, yet I don't see you complaining about that. I'd rather see that money spent on just about ANYthing else. Any harebrained idea will do.

I agree on your point about the Iraq war...but not with the last part.
The money would have been best NOT spent, have you seen the deficit lately?

Well yeah, agreed.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Well that sure would have helped our deficit. Not spending it is a heck of a lot better than spending it.

 

[BlancoNino]

War costs a lot of money? What the hell?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
War costs a lot of money? What the hell?

Glad you woke up and smelled the coffee.

Hell yeah war costs money with no return on investment. There are far better uses for the money which has been wasted on this war, and that is what this thread is about.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
War costs a lot of money? What the hell?

Glad you woke up and smelled the coffee.

Hell yeah war costs money with no return on investment. There are far better uses for the money which has been wasted on this war, and that is what this thread is about.

Give it back to the americans in the form of a check? That's the only other option I'd support rather than spending it on the military.

 

[conjur]

The national deficit means nothing to you (same as DICK Cheney)?

 

[Jmman]

I think the government should buy everyone a 50 inch plasma and an xbox 360 with that money. There would be no more crime since everyone would have a killer rig they could play with all day long. Sounds just as good......:laugh:

 

[sdifox]

Technically speaking, the hardware money is going to defence contractors, which like it or not, is part of the US economy.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: sdifox
Technically speaking, the hardware money is going to defence contractors, which like it or not, is part of the US economy.

That's just a subtle way of saying "corporate welfare to the military-industrial complex".

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
War costs a lot of money? What the hell?

Glad you woke up and smelled the coffee.

Hell yeah war costs money with no return on investment. There are far better uses for the money which has been wasted on this war, and that is what this thread is about.

Give it back to the americans in the form of a check? That's the only other option I'd support rather than spending it on the military.

How about not spending it at all? Do you not like fiscal responisibility or something? Deficits are fine sometimes but they've gotten out of hand recently.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
War costs a lot of money? What the hell?

Glad you woke up and smelled the coffee.

Hell yeah war costs money with no return on investment. There are far better uses for the money which has been wasted on this war, and that is what this thread is about.

Give it back to the americans in the form of a check? That's the only other option I'd support rather than spending it on the military.

How about not spending it at all? Do you not like fiscal responisibility or something? Deficits are fine sometimes but they've gotten out of hand recently.

War is good for defense contractors, and the Central Banks. /The End

 

[piasabird]

Actually the war effort is going to jobs.

 

[Cooler]

Give everyone in the US $100.

 

[M00T]

Fund disease reasearch... AIDS, avian flu.

Feed the poor.

Educate third world countries to prevent them from becoming gullible suicide bombers.

Finance real humanitarian missions such as the red cross.

There's a lot of options besides blowing the fvck out of undeserving peoples.

 

[Genx87]

This experiement of yours failed a decade ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The govt manufacturing cars would lead the demise of our own industry. This would put people out ofn the streets which leads to lower tax revenues and higher deficits.

It is counter productive and a bad idea.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Actually the war effort is going to jobs.

The lasting effects are more negative than they are positive. The extra money we are shelling out has to be repaid and our interest payment will keep rising each year if we keep borrowing at this rate. How do you expect us to pay for these higher interest payments? Higher taxes? Republicans don't like higher taxes.

Also, the money that the government is using for the war could be much more efficiently spent by the free market.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sdifox
Technically speaking, the hardware money is going to defence contractors, which like it or not, is part of the US economy.

That's just a subtle way of saying "corporate welfare to the military-industrial complex".

There are benefits to the economy with such huge expenditures, it's not all bad, that's all.