• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What could we have done with the money?

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...kstrilliondollars.html

He calculates $1 trillion could pave the entire U.S. interstate highway system with gold - 23.5-karat gold leaf. It could buy every person on the planet an iPod. It could give every high school student in the United States a free college education. It could pay off every American's credit card. It could buy a Buick for every senior citizen still driving in the United States.
Pretty staggering considering the estimate has been raised now. I wish the cost of this war would get more attention with all the talk of deficits and spending and taxes.

Here you can go on a shopping spree with $1 trillion: http://www.whatwecouldhavedonewiththemoney.com/
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why doesn't the left suggest we could have just NOT SPENT IT AT ALL? ;) Why is it always "we could have spent it on ____ or ____?"
touche, but I think it is just a way to make the cost easier to understand
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why doesn't the left suggest we could have just NOT SPENT IT AT ALL? ;) Why is it always "we could have spent it on ____ or ____?"
touche, but I think it is just a way to make the cost easier to understand
I can understand "you paid $6k less in income taxes" much easier than I can understand "you funded $6k in social programs that you will never benefit from and/or dont agree with."

Really. I can. I bet most other people can too.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why doesn't the left suggest we could have just NOT SPENT IT AT ALL? ;) Why is it always "we could have spent it on ____ or ____?"
touche, but I think it is just a way to make the cost easier to understand
I can understand "you paid $6k less in income taxes" much easier than I can understand "you funded $6k in social programs that you will never benefit from and/or dont agree with."

Really. I can. I bet most other people can too.
Since it was funded on debt, you wouldn't have paid less. The reason the war lasted so long was because it didn't affect the average person.

All we can really say is "without the war, we would be X amount in debt, and have X higher unemployment due to less jobs in the military".

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why doesn't the left suggest we could have just NOT SPENT IT AT ALL? ;) Why is it always "we could have spent it on ____ or ____?"
touche, but I think it is just a way to make the cost easier to understand
I can understand "you paid $6k less in income taxes" much easier than I can understand "you funded $6k in social programs that you will never benefit from and/or dont agree with."

Really. I can. I bet most other people can too.
You are assuming most people do not agree with most social services. Remember that most social services do not come in the form of welfare checks.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Putting it in our national piggy bank would have been fine with me.

Alternatively, we could have used it on infrastructure or scientific research funding.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Putting it in our national piggy bank would have been fine with me.

Alternatively, we could have used it on infrastructure or scientific research funding.
A gold-plated highway system sounds like a start in rebuilding our infastructure
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why doesn't the left suggest we could have just NOT SPENT IT AT ALL? ;) Why is it always "we could have spent it on ____ or ____?"
Winner. That money should not even exist. *sigh*
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why doesn't the left suggest we could have just NOT SPENT IT AT ALL? ;) Why is it always "we could have spent it on ____ or ____?"
Why weren't neocon apologists saying this about the Iraq war?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
I know it shouldn't suprise me that "treasure", or lack thereof is looked down upon in the decision to go to war or stay at war nowadays. IIRC, without a formal declaration of war, Congress can and in some cases should yank the funding for a conflict thereby forcing POTUS to cease hostilities/operations. The only thing concerning that which should be counted as "not supporting the troops" would be the POTUS leaving troops in harms way once congress has sent the budgetary signal to get them the hell out of dodge. I realize I'm probably in the minority on that view, though.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,602
15,942
136
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why doesn't the left suggest we could have just NOT SPENT IT AT ALL? ;) Why is it always "we could have spent it on ____ or ____?"
Winner. That money should not even exist. *sigh*
Don't worry then, it doesn't.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY