Does 222 billion a year make it any better though? Of course, we assume that the analysts results are correct. that is that there was no net gain to the US (or to any of us) of the military action, which as you say stretched across 9 years.
The country didn't need rebuilding until the US and Allies destroyed it. So is it a reasonable and rational thing to support destroying a country then spending 222b dollars a year to rebuild it (Let's assume it was ALL spent on infrastructure and rebuilding) ? Now when you add the fact that more terrorism, means everyone is less safe...then what has the 222b really bought everyone? All the countries that contributed to the effort, what did they all gain by going into Iraq? I can't see how anyone could not be completely baffled by the costs involved in these operations for the outcomes that we see. If a CEO decided to spend 222 billion a year on a project and never achieved the stated objectives (or even misstated the objectives and reasons), that guy would probably be charged with incompetence, negligence etc. etc. He wouldn't be given another 222 bn the next 5 years to get the same non results. And it isn't just the United States. as of June 2010 costs to BRITAIN (country in economic turmoil) was about 20 BILLION POUNDS (30 Billion US Dollars). What are the people in these countries getting for this expenditure of money? Are we any more safe? The War on Terror continues unabated, so it doesn't seem so. The cost to feed the world is 195 billion a year, to compare. The budget for the US National Cancer Institute is 4.9b a year. The budget for NASA which has given the world incredible technological advances, is 17.7 billion and that was cut. The CERN large Haldron Collider was 9bn US. What are we really spending our resources on and for what gain? On 16 March 2013 09:41, C. Hatton Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > One thing I find disingenuous about people complaining about the size of > the military budget is the pure fact that it contains dollars that aren't > spent blowing things up and killing people. Lots of dollars, actually. > > In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we've rebuilt infrastructure in areas > (probably not all, but a lot). > > Military members, generally coordinated by the Chaplains, help local areas > rebuild schools, roads, wells and other outreach services. > > When natural disasters strike, our military is poised to provide direct > assistance rapidly. > > When I was in the Navy, every base has large numbers of non-military > employees, working in the Exchanges, commissaries, guest housing, MWR > facilities, etc. In fact in many areas in the US rely heavily on their > bases for income with businesses built up around the gates relying on > income from members. I know most of that remains true. > > Also, looking at the subject line, "US Spends $2T in Iraq" is somewhat > misleading. The most recent incursion in Iraq lasted from 2003-2011, or 9 > years. That averages out to $222 billion/yr if you assume straight > spending. Unfortunately that headline wouldn't sell as well as the one > used. > > You can stop reading here unless you want to deal with my numbers, I'm > working on my MBA and currently in a Financial Analysis course so I took > things a bit further. My point is that, much like the "so what" comment, > there's a LOT more behind the Defense line in the Federal budget and behind > the numbers spent in any particular theater of operations. I probably > missed non-blowing-things-up-and-killing-people items that are included in > the spending, it's early ;) > > The rest of my analysis is looking at the defense budget compared to other > items, especially in light of sequestration. That process required, "50% > military cuts and 50% discretionary spending cuts" across the board if my > understanding of the language is right. > > Hatton > > Looking at > > http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/14/152671813/50-years-of-government-spending-in-1-graphit > shows the "defense" budget at 22% and includes the following > statement: > "Defense spending has shrunk significantly as a percentage of total > government spending. But it remains the largest single category of federal > spending. The figures in the graph include veterans' benefits as well as > funding for current operations." > > Even that statement is somewhat skewed when looking at "defense compared to > everything else." Social programs combined make up 56.8% of the spending, > combining Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Safety Net Programs and > International Affairs. > > Those are percentages per year based on NPR's analysis. > > http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbf_11bs1n#usgs302shows > the estimated breakdown in spending dollars, specifically: > > Pensions - $780.8 billion (20.37%) - Including Social Security and the > Federal Pension Program > Health Care - $898 billion (23.43%) - Including Medicare, Medicaid, Gov't > funding to R&D > Education - $140.9 billion (3.68%) > Defense - $928.5 billion (24.22%) > Welfare - $471.5 billion (12.3%) - Including Social Safety Net programs > Protection - $57.3 billion (1.5%) - Grants and Loans to State & Local > agencies > Transportation - $104.2 billion (2.72%) > General Government - $29 billion (0.76%) > Other Spending - $173.1 billion (4.52%) > Interest - $250.7 billion (6.54%) > > Adding those together, Defense lags social programs 24% to 56% (Pensions, > Health Care, Welfare). > > > Until Later! > C. Hatton Humphrey > http://www.eastcoastconservative.com > > Every cloud does have a silver lining. Sometimes you just have to do some > smelting to find it. > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Bruce Sorge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No Angel, you are right actually and I should be the one to apologize. I > > guess I am just so frustrated with the way things are going in America > that > > I lose sight of the fact that yes, what happens to us does have an effect > > on other countries. So please accept my apology and I'll be more mindful > of > > what I say. > > > > Bruce > > > > > > > >> > > >> Bruce, you're right. I apologise. > > >> Non Americans have no right to discuss America and its policies. > > >> The US economy doesn't affect any other country. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:361870 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
