What a Waste

POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 21:38
VIEWED: 1795
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DAYVE

Monday, August 28, 2006 3:12 PM

I pulled this up from www.crooksandliars.com this morning - There are many of us who feel the war in Iraq was wrong from the beginning. The cost of human life has been devastating; of this there is no doubt.

But for those who can only see things in terms of dollar signs (and there are more than a few of those), here is an example of the cost to California taxpayers.

Go check out what the trade-offs are for your state by using the link below.

http://nationalpriorities.org/

The Cost of “Staying the Course”
By: Nicole Belle @ 4:16 PM - PDT
The National Priorities Project has a real eye-opening website that calculates the cost of the War in Iraq and them compares it to what we could do with that money.
As a resident of California, here’s what they say we could be doing:
Taxpayers in California will pay $40.3 billion for the cost of war in Iraq. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
16,733,296 People with Health Care or
627,551 Elementary School Teachers or
4,767,634 Head Start Places for Children or
25,168,314 Children with Health Care or
235,246 Affordable Housing Units or
4,390 New Elementary Schools or
7,685,109 Scholarships for University Students or
616,017 Music and Arts Teachers or
741,482 Public Safety Officers or
117,140,845 Homes with Renewable Electricity or
601,790 Port Container Inspectors
end quote

edit: some of you may say that this is a small price to pay to protect the American way of life – but what (or who) are we really protecting..? IMHO this whole fiasco will haunt this country for many years to come.

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 28, 2006 3:27 PM

Come on Dayve! You think we could whistle up that taxpayer money for just and noble uses?
What planet YOU livin' on bro?
The good of our children and country AIN'T A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE!!!
The potential loss of business and revenue connected to a 'war slow down' is the concern! THAT WILL RELEASE THE FUNDS, JIM!
F**K Head Start, they don't need to grow up all fed n'edjimicated to go fight an Oil-War!

Disgusted and all sarcastic Chrisisall

DAYVE

Monday, August 28, 2006 3:42 PM

oh yeah, i forgot - we're only raising little militant goosesteppers... ah, the world we live in!

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:24 PM

Doing nothing would have cost more.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FELLOWTRAVELER

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:38 PM

What the Hell, I'll bite... Although, let me preface this with I am against the war and playing the devil's advocate.

I had read that the last straw between Iraq and the Bush administration was Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela were in discussions about starting to price barrels of oil in Euros instead of US dollars.

The article also stated that the pricing of oil in dollars keeps the value of the US dollar artificially high and it would collapse if any change ensued.

From their prospective, the collapse of the US dollar would be a whole lot worse than the temporary redirection of funds.

It could be BS, but if true, aren't we better off?

Ignoring, of course, the total loss of credibility on the world stage and a generation of Muslim kids that now want us all dead...

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:46 PM

Auraptor,

Nonsense.

Dayve,

I saw this post on C&L. The problem is there argument is full of liberal agenda items. That's an amazingly unconvincing argument to a conservative:

"Look, you could have spent all of this money on all of these liberal agenda items" is going to promp a big "no thanks."

I think there should be a few things in there like the number of small business loans it would pay for, or how many of the world's black market nukes could have been purchased with this kind of cash. Then I think you'd see less of a partisan split.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:47 PM

Auraptor,

Nonsense.

Dayve,

I saw this post on C&L. The problem is there argument is full of liberal agenda items. That's an amazingly unconvincing argument to a conservative:

"Look, you could have spent all of this money on all of these liberal agenda items" is going to promp a big "no thanks."

I think there should be a few things in there like the number of small business loans it would pay for, or how many of the world's black market nukes could have been purchased with this kind of cash. Then I think you'd see less of a partisan split.

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Doing nothing would have cost more.

How do you figure? Doin' Jayne math now are we?

Oh, that's right, Saddam was positioning himself to take over the world!

Silly? Well, yeah, sometimes I am. Okay, so toppling his administration with a combo of political sanctions and black bag ops to make him 'dis-appear' would have certainly cost less.

Unrealistic? Yeah, I can be that too. So what about targeting those responsible DIRECTLY for 911, and KILLING them to be a warning to the rest in Iraq?
Oh yeah, no one in Iraq was directly linked to 911....

Wait, you mean LITERALLY doing nothing? That wasn't gonna happen on any playing field...

AURaptor, you always make a simple thing complicated, don't ya???

Hey, is the 'AU' in your handle symbolic for the distance 'twixt you and reality?

A very bad man Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Dayve,

I saw this post on C&L. The problem is there argument is full of liberal agenda items. That's an amazingly unconvincing argument to a conservative

DT, surely you ain't sayin' that schoolin' our next generation of future registered voters ain't high on a conservative's list of important issues?
A little money spent now conserves our nation's future, doesn't it?

How is that partisan Chrisisall

DAYVE

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
"Look, you could have spent all of this money on all of these liberal agenda items" is going to promp a big "no thanks."

DT i understand what you're saying - heaven forbid we ever try to help the future generations or :gasp: the poor... but i believe the california example also listed 741,482 Public Safety Officers or
601,790 Port Container Inspectors..... what? they don't count towards 'National Security'??...

When a conservative calls me a "bleeding heart" liberal... all i can say is... at least i have a heart.....

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE