Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
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. |
Of course it would grow quicker, how can we make the beast that is social spending grow quicker. My child spending last year rose 50% over my other expenditures because I had another child, but I still spent way more on other things.
Quote:
|
According to this article, war spending is 4.0% of our GDP, and non-war spending is 3.6% in 2007, and the gap is projected to widen by another .3% in 2008.
|
* Medical assistance to low income persons cost $222 billion or 51 percent of total welfare spending.
* Cash, food and housing aid together cost $167 billion or 38 percent of the total.
* Social Services, training, targeted education, and community development aid cost around $47 billion or 11 percent of the total.
Quote:
|
The cost of the war in U.S. fatalities has declined this year, but the cost in treasure continues to rise, from $48 billion in 2003 to $59 billion in 2004 to $81 billion in 2005 to an anticipated $94 billion in 2006, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found.
|
We are spending less on the war then we spend on straight welfare, the checks, the food stamps that sort of thing, and far less than our social programs.
And I'll like to get a bit philosophical. Its not the governments JOB to give people others peoples money, though thats what it does in spades these days. It is its job to fight wars.
Quote:
|
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.
|
We have far greater sinkholes in the form of free money we give out to non-productive vote plantations. As for the fake terrorists, thats your opinion, and I completely disagree.
Quote:
|
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 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?
|
This administration doesn't care about car safety? Those bastards! Perhaps we need a war on car safety? While this is an apple in my orange juice, perhaps more could be done for car safety, perhaps we could all drive big rubbery balls that can't go over 30 miles an hour and are centrally controlled. Maybe that IS the better way, but thats protecting people from themselves. Apparently people like their cars they way they are, and have for this administration, and the last one, and the one before that. When car safety was a big problem, it did become a government issue. If you don't think the current standards are enough then feel free to get at it. Maybe Hilary can make that part of her campaign.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If I was doing a cost benefit analysis as a scientist I'd say kill off about 20 million Americans as they give us no benefit and they cost a shitload. I'd then nuke all of the mid east except for the oil fields as this would be the greatest benefit with the least cost, though we would need to run the numbers if slave labor would give a greater benefit or just straight genocide.
This is why using a cost benefit analysis is not perhaps the best way to decide this.