- #1
Desiree
- 22
- 0
What do these numbers tell you?
http://costofwar.com/
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
http://costofwar.com/
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
lisab said:The second link is broken. The first link makes me sad.
Desiree said:Thanks, fixed it.
waht said:1 trillion cost of war in 10 years is insignificant compared to the size of US economy. All it did is stimulated the military-industrial complex which keeps the US on cutting edge.
Desiree said:I don't think you realize the devastating impact of such spendings and debts on your children's future and what better things could have been done with 1 trillion dollars.
http://www.cosmoloan.com/money-mana...y-with-a-trillion-dollars.html#comment-65009"
With a trillion dollars you could buy out America’s supply of bacon for the next 500 years.
With a trillion dollars you could own and operate your own space program with an annual budget of $20 billion for the next 50 years. That’s $2 billion more than NASA spends each year.
waht said:1 trillion cost of war in 10 years is insignificant compared to the size of US economy. All it did is stimulated the military-industrial complex which keeps the US on cutting edge.
Ivan Seeking said:Really, that's ALL it did. Tell that to my nephew who had to clean up the body parts from a family that was killed by mistake. Oh yes, never mind, he's probably too drunk to listen.
waht said:1 trillion cost of war in 10 years is insignificant compared to the size of US economy. All it did is stimulated the military-industrial complex which keeps the US on cutting edge.
The biggest drains every year are social security, health, and medicare...
That military spending doesn't go into a black hole, though: it is mostly spent on the salaries of our military and the compaanies who make the equipment.Desiree said:I don't think you realize the devastating impact of such spendings and debts on your children's future and what better things could have been done with 1 trillion dollars.
Ivan Seeking said:How much bang did we get for the buck? Did we get a trillion dollars worth of development?
Btw, the interest on our national debt is about 160 billion per year. If we didn't have to pay interest, there wouldn't be a problem, so clearly 100 billion per year is significant. 100 billion less per year is the equivalent of eliminating over 60% of our national debt.
What if all of that money has been dumped into the US economy for productive reasons, rather than for building bombs, and fueling tanks and aircraft?
Cyrus said:Tell's me you lack critical thinking skills, because all you've posted are numbers.
Desiree said:First of all, I didn't start an argument based on those numbers, and second of all, as the title reads: "think for a moment..."
So what makes you think I lack critical thinking skills?
Granted! But this has nothing to do with the OP, which, as was pointed out to you before, is about money.Ivan Seeking said:We don't have to attack a country in order to have a strong military.
Then that'd be a losing bet. Where do you think the money actually goes that the payoff could be 1:1000? Heck, if we have 100,000 troops employed at an average salary of $30,000 apiece, that would be $27 billion right there, or just under 3%.How much bang did we get for the buck? Did we get a trillion dollars worth of development? Or was most of that money wasted fighting a war that wasn't needed? I would bet any payoff is on the order of one part in a thousand, or less.
Your point, so you tell me. I'll give it a shot, though: if the societal benefit to building a bridge was huge on its own, we wouldn't need to use stimulus spending to build it. The stimulus spending was sold by Obama as a way to create jobs, not for the societal benefit of what those jobs were doing. In that sense, money spent building a bomb is exactly equivalent to money spent building a bridge.What if all of that money has been dumped into the US economy for productive reasons, rather than for building bombs, and fueling tanks and aircraft? How much more benefit do we derive per dollar spent, from a bridge, than we do a truckload of bombs?
...probably because no one made such an argument!I fail to follow the logic that it was advantageous to fight an unnecessary war...
Indeed we could. But for the fifth or sixth time now, the OP was about money! Developing a weapon is still expensive and it is still money that we are spending that we don't have. We shouldn't be spending it: not on developing new weapons, not on wars, and not on "economic stimulus", all of which are functionally equivalent.Even viewing this from a purely militaristic point of view, I would bet that one could develop a pretty cool weapon for a trillion dollars.
Starting a thread with an open-ended question leaves us to guess what your point was. Failing to ever provide analysis makes one question your critical thinking skills.Desiree said:First of all, I didn't start an argument based on those numbers, and second of all, as the title reads: "think for a moment..."
So what makes you think I lack critical thinking skills?
Cyrus said:Preemptive Thread reopened
It's good to be king.
Phrak said:Haha, Cyrus. Take this: Thread Locked
Darned locking mechanism. Must be jammed...
Ivan Seeking said:We don't have to attack a country in order to have a strong military. The point that B justifies A is falacious. How much bang did we get for the buck? Did we get a trillion dollars worth of development? Or was most of that money wasted fighting a war that wasn't needed? I would bet any payoff is on the order of one part in a thousand, or less.
Pattonias said:I believe the new US national defence strategy should be that whenever the US is attacked we shoud file for sanctions in the UN and dedicate the majority of our defence budget to building bridges and investing in solar panels.
Cyrus said:Nonsense.
Pattonias said:I believe the new US national defence strategy should be that whenever the US is attacked we shoud file for sanctions in the UN and dedicate the majority of our defence budget to building bridges and investing in solar panels.
Pattonias said:I agree.
Desiree said:What do these numbers tell you?
http://costofwar.com/
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Maybe so. Then instead of the US, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear sites first, likely leading to Iranian indiscriminate responses against Israel, likely leading to a rapidly widening Middle East conflict.Count Iblis said:It tells me that the US will not attack Iran.
Cyrus said:Tell's me you lack critical thinking skills, because all you've posted are numbers.
What does this number mean to you?
2389348967o659560845903445985690569560490823948234908486849680980250892505409468905
<whistles> wheeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwww that's a big number!
jreelawg said:Are you Glen Beck? Seriously
mheslep said:Maybe so. Then instead of the US, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear sites first, likely leading to Iranian indiscriminate responses against Israel, likely leading to a rapidly widening Middle East conflict.