quite an eye catching number.

i am going to throw this out here and see if anyone bites. i would have thought this would have been mentioned here already, and maybe it was and i missed it, but i am curious.

i know that the president has asked for 87 billion dollars to help rebuild iraq as a functioning nation. from some of what i have read , this figure seems to have shocked many american politians, and it will eventually be 'paid back' by my children & their children as well (two generations).

what do people think?

1) is that the price that comes with being the worlds 'superpower'?

2) was iraq an 87 billion dollar threat (its not the total figure) to the united states & world?

3) do you think you will see a return to the u.s. that will outweigh the total dollar figure we spend for the effort?

4) did we do the right thing?


its not always fair to be an 'arm chair quarterback' and make decisions now on facts that you may not have had before the whole process took place, but we are now operating under the circumstances we created, and it should make for an interesting discussion.


personally it scares the crap out of me when these kind of figures are thown around almost casually. that coupled with the fact that there are still giving tax rebates makes it harder for me to understand. it just seems that if you had to spend this kind of money you would really have to suck it up somewhere else. i would think that we couldnt even print money fast enough to settle this kind of debt.

i know there are alot of people on this site with good information & opinions. i also know that people here can discuss things like rational human beings. i hope that proves true for this thread as well. it will be interesting how different people interpert the same situation that we are all in.

 

o.k. i'll bite.

from what i have read and heard 87 billion in todays dollars is nothing compared to the cost of ww2 for example. i also heard/read that 87+ billion was a figure known all along it is just the media spinning it out of control due to the election year comming up.

yes it is/was a good investment by showing that we are not weak and that we will not tolerate terror against our country by small minded religious zelots.

i also believe that the country is still in shock that our federal government (Mr. Bush) actually did something pro-active!! we/our country and our general way of thinking has been historically re-active

can't wait to see how this thread pans out!

 

msn news has done an editorial piece on this subject. It s in the "Slate" opinion section.

With the additional 87 billion, this will be the highest military spend EVER with the exception of one single year of the Korean War.

Before you talk about inflation, the msn reporter adjusted past military spend levels to 2004 (adding in all of the inflation)

Even at the height of WW2, in adjusted dollars, the US didnt spend this much on military.

 

It's a skewed adjustment to anger you at the spending. Your talking low-tech versus hi-tech . We use less now with more effectiveness and less loss of life for our soldiers.

So with that type of mentality we should spend less and just throw our soldiers out there with nothing but bullets, hand grenades and dumb bombs?

That would end up with a 10 fold casualty rating follwed by a longer drawn out situation. As far as opinions from the "Slate" they just couldn't be any more biased.

 

Yes the money is a small and wise investment. It is money needed because of basically 20 years plus of ignoring real world danger. Now those 20 years span both Republican and Democrat Presidents.

However, in their defensive there is really nothing that none of them, including President Clinton could have done. You may ask why? Well because the public, at least the vast majority of them could care less about foreign affairs. As long as they are getting paychecks and can buy their material things they are happy and want to hear nothing of what is going on in the real world.

It took 911 to really bring it home to America and actually give our government the means to really do something about terriosm. I was never a Clinton supporter but in his defensive Clinton could have never done what President Bush has done. Clinton would have never had a mandate to do so because the public would have never really bought off on the threat. Sure someone tried to bomb the World Trade Center, but that was nothing. It made news for a night or two and nothing really out of the ordinary as far as damage, at least to the public.

Now with two jet liners crashes into the Trade Center that was pictures that were way out of the ordinary and showed Americans there really are people out there that would like to kill every one of us.

Is Iraq in the middle of what happen? That is debatable however Iraq was a terriost nation that did produce more chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons then most other nations. Iraq is basically the center of the Middle East and was quite capable of supplying terriost with all kinds of weapons that could have been used against us.

What happens in Iraq will for the most part determine how well America will survive in the future. If we stay and stabilize, rebuild and get Iraq on a democratic course then it will help insure America is a much safer place to live for our kids and their kids.

If we leave Iraq and/or fail Iraq then we will have done grave danger to our kids and their kids because the world will be even more unstable then it is now. America will be seen as weak with no resolve to stand up to those who wish to destroy us.

Is 87 billion a lot of money? No, not by a long shot. This drug program they are trying to pass in Congress is in much more ” $400 billion Medicare prescription-drug benefit.” http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_c...ards062503.asp That is just one program…

You see the main mandate of Congress and the federal government in general is to insure the stability and self defense of America not hand out money to special groups of people. It always amuses me how when a large amount of money is needed for America’s self defense and security many people question it. When there are other programs, education, welfare, prescription drug programs that have NOTHING to do with Americas self defense and security very few people question the money.

Kind of like tax cuts, when ever there are tax cuts many people question ”How are we going to pay for it?” However when there are tax increase very few question how we will pay for that, it is a given.

The bottom line is this, if 87 million is too much for security then so be it. Let’s discuss what programs the federal government should be cutting to free up the money needed to fund defense. Defense of the country is what Congress is in Washington for, not to help some people who made bad decisions in life.

It is very easy and is quite achievable to defend America and have tax cuts it is only a matter of cutting the unneeded programs to cover the cost.

Look at is this way, if your kid was in school and always had to worry about bullies beating on him/her everyday how much would you spend to insure your child was safe?

That is the question, how much is your personal and family security worth to you? If you and/or your family are not secure and/or the government is not secure there is no need for any of the other programs to begin with. You have to have a functioning country for there to be programs for.

That’s it for now, I’ll post more later but the bottom line is 87 billion is pretty damn cheap when compared to other money spent on other government programs. It would be nice to see people get so upset about spending 400 billion on prescription drugs then 87 billion for what Congress is there for…

 

I never stated that soldiers should die... even though thats their job. Thats the risk when the sign up... no different than Police or Fire Fighters.

That being said... look at where the budget is being spent.

If all acknowledge the new world order and that brute force isn't going to stop terrorists and guerilla fighters... why on earth is so much being spent on additional nukes for subs? Why are more Apaches being ordered when it appears that they are useless in conflicts against geurillas?

Bunker busters, smart bombs and unmanned drones would do more damage than an Apache with ZERO US lives lost.

I could see $487 billion being spent, but on much more realistic tools, armament and training.

 

Candidate for the most stupid sentence ever posted on this forum. Anybody second my nomination?

 

oh give me a gun and send me off to face someone else whom also has a gun... but if I die we will all be surprised and angered.


How is that statement dumb? No one wants soldiers to die. Nor do we want police or fire fighters to die. But remember it is the risk that comes with the job.

Yes, we all realize that we want to minimize casualites... but it is the higher ups that do the calculations on how many must die to acheive military goals.

The original thread started as "is 87 million a lot of money for what needs to be done"

I forwarded a comment made by MSN Slate. While yes it is biased, there is truth in the commentary. Yes there is a high price to pay for security but the question remains "is it being spent in the right places"

I noticed that you didnt comment on the point I raised concerning "ZERO lives lost" through use of the advanced technologies canyonslicker stated in his arguement.

 

I think the real question here and the one that needs to be debated is between social programs and self defense, security and the interest of America.

For those, like me, who do not wish to spend money on both social programs and defense programs it is a matter of choice and priorities. Some have the false belief we can have both. That is not logical and those that want that know as well it is not logical but just don’t have the guts to actually question it. I guess because so many people are followers and there are few leaders. Many people only want to say what they think others will like to hear rather then speaking the truth.

In all honestly who wants to tell the elder in this country they will not be getting all the benefits they seem to feel entitled to. Who wants to tell their friends that funding for education is a joke and is a waste of tax payer money. Neither of those programs have nothing to do with the job title of those in federal government. Neither of those programs have any mention in the Constitution. Now, that’s not to say they are not important but there is extremely too much money spent on them for what they actually produce. Reform just those two programs and you will free much more then 87 million dollars.

What is mentioned in the Constitution is the defense of America. This is from section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United State, but all duties, impost and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Now in that is the wording ”general welfare of the United States” that is the country and it did not state ”general welfare of the citizens of the United States” Therefore as I stated there is no mention of any of these “entitlement” or “social” programs.

It has always been my opinion that any budget by Congress should deal with all money needed for defense spending and then, if there is any money left over and people don’t mind having their money taken from them, can they talk about all the social programs.

As far as tax cuts I am all for them. Tax cuts mean less money for Congress to spend. Since they should ALWAYS focus on defense spending first and there is plenty of money for that then Congress should be debating on what cuts need to be made to the “social” and “entitlement” programs. This is NOT Congress’s money, it is my money and your money. I don’t want my money wasted on social and entitlement programs but rather spent on defense of this country. That is what is best for my child and her child and her child’s child.

If you really care about the children in America then you should be ALL for defense spending at what ever cost is needed to protect your children…

 

my original thought on this (in a nutshell) was:


do you think the situation in iraq is going to be worth the total cost?




i do not think that the people of iraq want a democracy and i dont know if that is anything you can do to force one down an unwilling partners throat.

here we wanted one, fought for one, and got it. i dont know how you could convince hostile groups there to 'vote their issues out'.

it would be sort of interesting to see all those people stuff their ballots in a box while carrying automatic weapons across their backs.

when they tallied the counts and one side looses, do you think the other would just walk away?

its seemed to me like they were their own worst enemy, and as long as they werent crossing the borders or outwardly focusing their attentions, so be it. let them keep themselves occupied.

they were stopped when they tried to get kuwait back, which i think for the overall big picture was a very good thing (that they were stopped). but since then it seemed to me like they were just shooting themselves in the foot.

 

During war, a combat soldier's job is to kill or capture the enemy. While it is accepted that some soldiers will die in the performance of this duty, it is not thier job to do so. It is a risk which is inherent to the service they perform for thier Nation, but not the goal of thier mission.


I didn't consider that to be the most stupid statement I've ever seen submitted here. It wasn't the smartest either. The Apache has a mission that is different than that of a smart bomb. Both are required to minimize the loss of life of the soldier while effectively engaging the enemy.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah-64.htm

 

The thing to think about when talking about the arsenal of the military be it high tech or low tech is this:

It is a complete program that needs to meet any and all possible missions it “may” encounter. Another way of looking at it is Football. You have a quarterback, receivers, blockers, running backs etc. They all provide for important functions in their particular missions. You may only use a running back for 20% of the game and the receivers for 80% depending on the opponent. You may face another opponent where you use the receivers 20% of the time and the running backs 80%.

It all depends on the conditions and the opponent. Just because we are the only superpower left in the world does not mean one day, and one day soon we will not face another. Look at China. You will always need the most advanced arsenal and the most low tech arsenal right down to the solider on the ground. Neither out weighs the other but compliments each other, it’s like saying you only need receivers and no running backs.

The high tech arsenal we now have and used in Iraq saved untold thousands of our soldiers life AND Iraq civilians life. If we had not had the high tech or not use it there would have been much more life lost then was.

We as a country have to have the biggest badest military on the block because the world depends on it. It is America that keeps the rest of the world safe at night, not France, Germany, or any other European country. Those countries neither have the knowledge, money or guts to do what we do.

 

I think before we get too far off topic I just want to bring one more thing to the table, that is State level spending.

We keep hearing baout federal spending on military vs social programs vs education but we dont hear about what States spend on the above items. It could be that some unthought of items are getting too much funding (if we added up all spend across all cites and states to get a national total)

Heck, arts funding could be getting $487 billion a year for all we know... (if we added up everything from all levels)

Maybe social programs and education should be funded entirely at the state level. The feds could offer up transfer payements to offset their direct contribution and let staates spend it as they will.

Liberal/left leaning states could spend more on social programs if their voters prefer that and conservative/right leaning states could do the opposite as their voters see fit.

Maybe thats the fair way... a New Yorker doesnt necessarily have the same objectives as a Texan ( as evidenced by which states voted for Gore vs Bush)

 

J-150:

Excellent points...

 

thanks 01. thats the great thing about discussing topics on a forum like this... we all get to see the other opinion and facts we hadn't thought of.

I think it makes us all more knowledgable at the end of the day.


(and you can only get so angry at another ford owner )