<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, January 26, 2006

The financial burden of the war in Iraq 

As I have written many times, the United States could bear the expense of the Iraq war indefinitely. John Hawkins has an interesting table that puts the financial cost of the war in perspective.

9 Comments:

By Blogger Bob, at Thu Jan 26, 01:13:00 AM:

I don't think we could bear the human costs indefinitely.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Jan 26, 04:06:00 AM:

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514  

By Blogger Screwy Hoolie, at Thu Jan 26, 08:03:00 AM:

Hawk?

When the Congress is cutting vital social programs to the nation's neediest while trumpeting fiscal responsibility over a Republican created deficit, it's impossible for me to think of the money unnecessarily spent in Iraq as a War on America's poor.

Sure, we can wage war indefinitely. Super. And the uninsured people, the disabled, the mentally ill, the impoverished can sign up to join the military if they want America's help.  

By Blogger Screwy Hoolie, at Thu Jan 26, 08:04:00 AM:

"it's impossible for me to think of the money unnecessarily spent in Iraq as anything but a War on America's poor."  

By Blogger Charlottesvillain, at Thu Jan 26, 09:31:00 AM:

Screwy, "vital" is a subjective term (as is "cutting" the way you use the term).

War or no war, there is much room for debate over appropriate ways to help America's poor. As a conservative, I would hope that the administration, if not waging this war, would not simply allocate these funds for social programs. But of course that is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, or at least always used to be.

A single nuclear detonaton on American soil would have a far deeper impact on America's poor, and our governments ability and will to help them, than this foreign war could possibly have.

Crushing AQ is our most vital social program of all.  

By Blogger Lanky_Bastard, at Thu Jan 26, 12:29:00 PM:

Whoa Screwy, stop the liberal train. I disembark at War on the Poor. (I don't know where that quote comes from, but it's over the top)

Just the same, the proper measurement of a war is the cost-benefit, not the absolute or even the relative cost. How do the benefits of this war compare to WWI, WWII, or the revolution? Right, they don't. I'm also curious why this "indefinitely sustainable" war is being waged on our Chineese credit card. I think it's to diminish the apparent cost of the war, so people won't ask questions like what are we getting for our money.

Charlottesvillan, please let's stop with the Iraq-nuclear-bomb-mushroom-cloud-smoking-gun fearmongering. They weren't even close to having nukes. (or was that just a segue into Iran?)

Lest I be totally contrary, good comment Bob.  

By Blogger Charlottesvillain, at Thu Jan 26, 12:57:00 PM:

I never mentioned Iraq as the source of a nuke, or what the source might be. But Iraq just happens to be where we are fighting Al Qaeda, and don't tell me they wouldnt love to use one if they get one. From Iran perhaps.  

By Blogger Screwy Hoolie, at Fri Jan 27, 08:20:00 AM:

Lanky,

"War on the Poor" is my own rhetorical flourish, but I'm at a loss when it comes to describing this administration's attitude towards the neediest people in America.  

By Blogger Cardinalpark, at Fri Jan 27, 11:02:00 AM:

To judge from spending on Medicaid and Medicare, not to mention tax cuts, i would say we are dropping some heavy cash on the needy. Really heavy. And with low unemployment rates and a decent economy, I would say the needy have work too.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?