Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
ratbastid - Before I tear you apart did you imply we spend more on this war than domestic programs? Surely I misread that.
EDIT: I think I did in fact misread it, it appears you think a few % of that money would do some good to the already 400+ billion we spend on social programs a year.
|
The fact is, war-related spending is already bigger than--and is growing dramatically faster than--spending on domestic programs.
Here's a link from 2004 that shows that between 2001 and 2003, war-related spending grew by 49.6% while the budget for domestic programs outside "homeland security" grew by 13.2%. The disparity has only grown since then.
According to
this article, war spending has been ahead of non-war spending since 2004. War spending in 2007 is 4.0% of our GDP, and non-war spending is 3.6%, and the gap is projected to widen by another .3% in 2008.
So, yes, I'm telling you the war is a MASSIVE SUCKING FINANCIAL SINKHOLE that isn't buying REAL Americans anything in terms of REAL safety. And if we spent that money (or some fraction of it) on REAL things that impact REAL American's lives, we could make a REAL difference. Instead we focus on the FAKE FAKE FAKE terrists.
Why do you think our administration does that, Ustwo? Why are they concerned about terrorism instead of car crashes? Why is more than half of the government's discretionary budget going into that? I invite you to THINK about this, rather than regurgitate something or ignore the question. What would be their motivation to put the focus and funding there, given the disproportionately small statistical risk of terrorist harm to American lives and interests?
You're a scientist, Ustwo, but on this issue you speak very unscientifically. Do the math here. It's cost/benefit analysis. If you can get dispassionate about your preconceived beliefs, you might see something new about it.