Users who Dugg This
threeelevenkeen
72 Followers
Jamie Collymore
8 Followers
Nabeel Ahmed
344 Followers
Mark Rosen
3487 Followers
Rajni Chauhan
766 Followers
Matt Musick
2292 Followers
Sid (Was busy with exams)
385 Followers
hewhopoopsJul 28, 2010
I'd gladly pay $3328.64 to keep America safe from the terrorists.
I mean, we are safe from the terrorists, right?
Right?
brezzzJul 28, 2010
Until they strike again.
weirddemonJul 29, 2010
DUN DUN DUN
k3nt0456Jul 29, 2010
why were you dugg down? D:
stormtrooprJul 29, 2010
Because that was the whole point of HeWhoPoops's post.
I can't believe I had to type HeWhoPoops...
mattjaJul 29, 2010
HeWhoPoops has won.
... ohnoes!
caferrellJul 28, 2010
We don't keep ourselves safe from terrorists by creating new terrorists, we do it by changing airline procedures and putting a door on the c**kpit of planes.
We do it by raising the awareness of Americans.
Killing random brown people in the Mid East and Central Asia does nothing to make us safer
fredfredricksonJul 28, 2010
Indeed. It actually makes the problem worse, because it stirs up a whole new generation of people who hate us enough to try to attack us.
Try explaining that to a Republican though, and you'll be met with either a blank stare or some random ordering of insulting words or talking points from last night's O'Reilly.
caferrellJul 29, 2010
Brother Fredrickson, don't fall in the trap of the Yin Yang bulls**t.
O'Rielley is an assh**e, and Republicans are evil, but Democrats are stupid. Democrats really think that you can spend your way out of debt. Republicans think that the rest of the world needs to do what we tell them. But the Democrats won't end the occupations, won't rein in the death squads, won't stop spying on Americans. The Republicans dream up this evil s**t and the Democrats just keep doing it. .
The fact is that Washington elites count on the eternal and pointless Yin Yang debate to make certain that Americans never realize that it really doesn't matter which of the two runs things from the point of view of the average guy. Either way, they're going to keep building war machines, they're going to keep killing people, They're going to keep doing what Wall Street wants, they are going to keep chasing our jobs overseas.
Nothing will change until enough of us say, "I will not vote for anybody that doesn't promise to vote against war, against further growth of government, against budget deficits."
Liberty is the answer brother, there is no answer from the big government besides war and oppression for you and millions for Goldman Sachs and the Pentagon. In this equation D = R. And D+R = War
mysticaloneJul 29, 2010
BURY HIM, HE HATES FREEDOM AND GOD AND GUNS AND JESUS
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
@caferrell I started reading your post. And then I started seeing so many generalizations with no facts ANYWHERE.
I stopped reading.
invictus125Jul 29, 2010
@caferrell
"Republicans are evil, but Democrats are stupid."
And people who use sweeping generalizations are ignorant.
compulsive1Jul 29, 2010
invictus125, Midgetmouse
Just how many times do you need to be reminded of facts? Are you new to this?
Just look at the recent (10 years or so) legislation. Everything Caferrell said is true and can be supported by facts, it just makes for very long posts that no one wants to read on Digg.
barkingshinsJul 29, 2010
@caferrell
I couldn't agree more. The "Democrat" and "Republican" labels are interchangeable at this point. Sure, their stated philosophies are different but, in practice, they are the same. The only reason why the labels exist at all anymore is to maintain the illusion of choice for the voting public.
I'd also like to add that, with the corporatization of our country, the people making the really important decisions around here are NOT the people we elected to do so. The U.S. elite have far too much to gain or lose to allow us, the unwashed masses, to determine the fate of the country. I firmly believe that, at this point, we could elect a ball-peen hammer as President of the United States and nothing whatsoever would change. To put it simply, the game is rigged against us and has been for a long time.
Here again, the only reason that elections exist at all today is to feed this on-going illusion that we the people are really in charge. The political system in this country is nothing more than theatre being performed on a huge stage and we are the audience being suckered into believing that it's real. It isn't. It's a distraction... a slight-of-hand trick meant to keep our minds off of how bad we are all being f**ked.
So go ahead people... keep cheerleading for your favorite D or R and see how much good it does you... see how much real change is brought about as a result of all your votes and all your support. Meanwhile, like the gods of Greece on Mount Olympus, the REAL decision makers in our country (unelected and unaccountable) will continue to manipulate, deceive and mislead all of us in whichever ways best suit their interests. Good luck.
clat98Jul 29, 2010
What? You are saying that fighting a concept using tanks isn't the best idea? Clearly you are not American!
wowiiJul 29, 2010
Thanks caferrell.
Fox News is also ran by the democrats. Its all a distraction game.
noagendashow.com is a podcast that DECONSTRUCTS the media and the left/right distraction BS. And yes, it is manufactured, on purpose BULLs**t.
The puppetmaster is the same on both sides.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
firebird703Jul 29, 2010
We're stabilizing part of the region that spawns terrorism.
Deal with it.
Steve Jobs
Sent from my iPhone 4
wrs123Jul 29, 2010
We've had a number of thwarted attacks just this year on US soil. I think a lot of you are underestimating the determination and ingenuity of extremists...
Whether a ground battle in Afghanistan will slow or stop that is anyone's guess. I believe that with the right steps it can certainly curb it, but I know when to pick a fight and no one on Digg will want to hear my argument. But keep in mind, terrorists ARE still a threat.
Commence the burying.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
caferrellJul 29, 2010
How could killing religious nationalists in Central Asia stop "terrorists" from attacking America?
If we were truly concerned with stopping terrorism, wouldn't we have captured or killed Osama bin Laden and Aiman Al Zawahiri by now? If Al Qaeda is truly an existential threat that warrants endless war, wouldn't it make sense to try to capture its leadership?
We suffered 3000 deaths because of the brainless policies that the FBI and the FAA imposed on the airlines, and because of our meddling and murders in the Mid East. Through our bullying we created antipathy that allowed Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to locate furious Egyptians and Saudis. Through our idiocy, we gave the men who were angry enough to kill themselves as long as they could hurt us, airliners to use as weapons against us.
Bullying + Incompetence ≠ Success
atarioJul 30, 2010
In this thread: encouragement of total apathy
oxidaneJul 30, 2010
saying "brown people" to victimize them doesn't help either.
bonestampAug 2, 2010
I think most people are aware of Americans.
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
Let's all just sit in America while terrorists have room to grow with no one stopping them.
Yeah? /sarcasm off
We've seen what they can do. 9/11.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jimlowJul 29, 2010
and I'm not scared why are you?
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
Lol I wouldn't say I'm scared. I lived my childhood in the country that hates America the most, Saudi Arabia. I see how they think and what they can do. And I'm concerned on attacks on freedomComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smacksawJul 29, 2010
Maybe if we spent $0 ever on Saudi Arabia or anyone they cared about, they'd be as concerned with us as they are with Lesotho, which is not at all.
readmymsgJul 29, 2010
If the US wasn't such a "world police", we wouldn't have terrorists looking to blow us up.
We can still trade with Saudi Arabia if we keep our politics to ourselves.
I don't see any major problems in Switzerland.
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
The terrorists don't hate us because we are a "world police". They hate us because of freedom and religion. They are brainwashed to despise freedom and Christianity.
It's very simple.
And the only reason we are on good terms with Saudi is because they have oil. Lots of it. That is the ONLY reason.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
readmymsgJul 29, 2010
I'm sorry, I failed to realize that our military influences did not affect the Middle East in any way to create such feelings.
Maybe if I actually read about stuff, I would be more knowledgeable like you.
Thanks you for this revelation, I feel so stupid.
adc86Jul 29, 2010
@Midgetmouse fewer than 5% of Americans reportedly tithe. Sure, every president since who knows when has said his "Go'bless 'Merica" speeches, but you'd think the 'terrists' would check a few simple statistics before committing... you know... their *lives* to killing us?
If you swirl your lobotomy wand of military force throughout the world, you can't expect much more than a semi-coherant angry world staring back at you.
(and, to clarify my concededly poorly-thought-out analog, 'semi-coherent' refers to how things ought to be vs how the US has skewed them)
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
911 happened because existing intelligence was not used and because security let people on a plane with something that actually can be easily used as a lethal weapon.
To prevent it from happening again it would have been enough to properly follow the rules that already were in place before (and make sure that for all gathered intelligence there is an employee who understands its language).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
I didn't expect so many people with the simple, typical mindset. If you actually lived in or visited these countries (in the middle east) you would know why they hate us.
Of course our military forces do play an issue, but that's not the only issue or the main issue. Like I said, it's freedom and religion.
Piece of advice to all you up there: do not speak as if you know why they hate us if you have not visited these countries and have not spoken with these people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
csalitureJul 29, 2010
Oooooh yeah. 9/11.. I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me.
1sammyJul 29, 2010
So if Saudis hate us so much, and it was a bunch of Saudis who were responsible for 9/11, and that's apparently where you think all the terrorists are, I can only conclude we must attack Iraq.
/s
fail
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
"and that's apparently where you think all the terrorists are"
15/19 of the bombers were from Saudi Arabia.
"I can only conclude we must attack Iraq."
Iraq wasn't attacked because "that's where the terrorists were".
At the time it was attacked from suspicion of nuclear weapons and to bring down Mr. Hussein.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dwaxeJul 29, 2010
Oh, so it was an even retardeder reason. Thank you kind sir.
wowiiJul 29, 2010
Saudi Arabia (our ally) is responsible for 9/11. Most the of 9/11 "terrorists" were from Saudi Arabia.
Right after 9/11 Bush went to the Saudi king, kissed him on the cheek and held his had as they walked.
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
The country iself isn't responsible.
The culture and the Islamic extremists are. Do you really think the Saudi King would openly embrace attacks on America? Hell no, he knows oil is the only thing keeping them safe.
And I'm not sure why you mentioned Bush, Obama has been even "nicer" to the Muslim community.
And I'm not sure what you are implying Bush should have done. Go to war with Saudi? Not when they have oil. Because some idiots within their community bombed us? You go to war with the actual terrorist groups.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
midgetmouseJul 30, 2010
Yes, that is exactly what I said. In Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of speech or press or religion. Especially religion. You cannot build a church or worship other religions. They hate America for it because we are mostly Christian. And anything associated with Christianity is not "with Allah" they presume.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digital56kJul 29, 2010
You'll gladly have to pay double that. Less than 50% of Americans pay federal income tax (for a variety of reasons).
noamchimpskyJul 29, 2010
Is Digit wrong in this?
It's a god damned fact that not everyone pays taxes and that the tax system is rife with inequity.
Why dig down the messenger?
trekkie1701cJul 29, 2010
It's the way he phrased it, it sounds like he things that someone that's raking in millions and millions of dollars every year should be paying the same in taxes as the guy working at a fast food restaurant making $5k a year. That's why we have a sliding tax scale, you charge the $5k person whatever might be a reasonable amount for even someone making $100k and he's pretty much working just to pay taxes. If you charge everyone whatever's reasonable for the $5k person... then well you'd watch our deficit explode even more than it has already.
dustblinkJul 29, 2010
Tax payers have paid about $7,095 into the war effort so far.
About 800 a year.
docbob84Jul 29, 2010
The problem is, people making millions of dollars a year don't pay the same in taxes as a guy making 5k a year. Warren Buffett is famous for having said he pays approx 17% of his earnings in taxes, while his secretary (apparently also a well-paid position) pays in the 35% bracket. There are loopholes and ways to hide money that people who earn more have access to; the rest of us have a flat percentage we pay. How is that fair?
squarejawJul 29, 2010
Fact: the federal income is not the only tax levied on citizens. Everybody is paying into the tax pool, in a variety of ways. No exceptions.
insanebrainJul 29, 2010
Yes, you are. Now go back to sleep.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
Right. I can say with nearly absolute certainty that you won't die in a terrorist attack. (Of course it would have been the same without these wars.)
atarioJul 30, 2010
I have a rock right here that will keep you safe from both terrorists /and/ tigers.
bigviJul 29, 2010
Thanks to the video guy from Circuit City.. yes we are
guenchyJul 29, 2010
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VH%2BKg%2BopL.jpg
xiqatJul 29, 2010
We're safe as long as stupid terrorists aren't smart enough to stop trying to blow up airplanes and start with random targets.
wrs123Jul 29, 2010
They wont. Its about cost/benefit. They have a hard enough time getting over here, they wont waste all that effort just to snub one person. Also, they rely heavily on the availability heuristic. What's more scary, dying in a plane crash or dying in a car crash? Car crash is more likely, but plane crashes make national news and scare the ever living s**t out of you.
startsomething7Jul 29, 2010
$3328.64 is more than I have to my name.
dalittleJul 29, 2010
including the white ones that blew up the Oklahoma Building and the one that flew a small plane into the IRS building in Austin.
noangelcameJul 29, 2010
Can we add this white guy to the list of terrorists? He tried to bomb Aspen on New Years Eve last year. Got closer to actually succeeding at it,. than any other real (muslim) terrorist since this all started.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/01/aspen.banks/index.html
fhwqhgadsJul 29, 2010
We won't be safe from terrorists until people start overwhelmingly supporting things like this:
http://digg.com/politics/Anti_Islamic_Bus_Ads_Appear_in_Major_U_S_Cities
Instead, the majority have been brainwashed by the PC lie to believe that what they are suppose to think is more important than what they actually do think.
stilesjaJul 29, 2010
That price is over 9 years. Really only about ~$400 per year per person. Still doesn't make it right.
random314Jul 29, 2010
That's about a bit more than $16,600 for a family of five.
bonestampAug 2, 2010
Brings new meaning to "Nuclear family"
unclefireJul 29, 2010
A) NO, we're not safe from terrorists b/c they're not all in Iraq or Afghanistan.
B) We didn't need to go into Iraq.
merrikJul 29, 2010
Iraq was dumb and I'll be glad when we get out of there, really. It might pay off as a regional ally in the long-run, but it was definitely a very poorly timed war of choice.
Afghanistan actually matters, but nobody really knows how to win that or what winning would even mean and we're going on 9 years. Personally I think we just need to settle the area. For something like less than 1/3 of what we pay a soldier we could just flood the country with a million Americans who want a job living in Afghanistan, improving the country, building homes and schools, etc.
noangelcameJul 29, 2010
@Merrick,.
You know,. with how desperate people are with unemployment in the US,. a job Afghanistan,. can start to sound like a good idea to a lot of people. win-win
wrs123Jul 29, 2010
Then you would have American contractors getting blown up by insurgents. The last thing they want in that corner of the world is more Americans and especially American business. Also, civilians are easy targets.
docholiday22Jul 29, 2010
Akmad agrees, you are safe. Please leave your doors open before bedtime. Nothing will happen, trust us.
chicken001Jul 29, 2010
There is a higher chance of you getting hit by a car than being killed by a terrorist.
elisliderJul 29, 2010
*crickets*
leekmiblesJul 29, 2010
Just to jump in real quick, America is actually doing a very good job keeping the country and citizens abroad safe. If you knew how many plots were and are in motion to f**k s**t up you may be surprised that the last attack happened 9 years ago. Part of that huge costs comes from things like gathering intel from over there that helps stop these attacks.
It's just kind of messed up that Americans don't appreciate all the hard work going on behind the scenes that keeps things, well um, behind the scenes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leekmiblesJul 30, 2010
That was posted in the wrong place. But whatever. To let me clarify, of course I don't agree with us going over there and I believe most of the money was wasted but now that we're stuck over there and the number keeps going up, at least something is getting done.
caio6939Jul 29, 2010
well... that's the total population. babies and kids don't pay taxes. So you divide the cost of the war by tax payers and the number is much higher.
caio6939Jul 29, 2010
There are about 140 million taxpayers which would bring that number to around $7,299.
mattjaJul 29, 2010
But it's the next generation of tax payers that fund the spending of yesteryear
caio6939Jul 30, 2010
Still won't change the number of taxpayers by much.
drenathJul 29, 2010
$15.40 per pay period
APPROVED
bridgeburnerJul 29, 2010
I have no expectation of safety or security being supplied by the government or anyone else.
mcalicaJul 29, 2010
Yah totally safe. I mean granted, we have the majority of our reserves and national guard in another country...but that doesn't mean we are defenseless. I got some pepper spray in my car, and my fiancee has a small one attached to her keychain. I think we're safe.
nmoulanaJul 29, 2010
Thanks to our foreign policy the terrorists have never hated you more. Now we no choice but to spend more money on security because they will spend more money tearing that security down. Enjoy your war based economy. Only thing left is to see who runs out of money first.
68024Jul 30, 2010
Not that I'm pro-war, but over 9 years, that works out to be about $1 a day per person.
wkrausmannJul 30, 2010
You might want to double that figure to around $6800 per tax payer. You see, this will be paid in taxes and 51% of US citizens paid taxes in 2009. The 49% of citizens who didn't pay taxes won't pay for any of the debt. They will however collect a return from the IRS.
harrypowersAug 6, 2010
"HeWhoPoops." hey, typing that name felt good, yeah it did.
captainrantJul 28, 2010
Making soccer moms feel safe is expensive.
pandawaJul 29, 2010
thats what it boils down to im afraid.
captininsanityJul 29, 2010
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
boner79Jul 29, 2010
More like satisfying the bloodlust of paranoid racist rich old white Christian men.
protargolJul 29, 2010
Maybe we should just have cops beat up and drag off brown actors from soccer fields instead. That way the morons feel safe, keep their WASP superiority complex intact, it will cost less, and we'll be able to stimulate the economy at homeComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diguptruth77Jul 29, 2010
Don't forget baby boomers!
brooks007Jul 29, 2010
Technically the soccer moms are safe. If you look at the chance of them being attacked by terrorist it’s pretty low. I’m not saying it would not be lower is we had different policies... but you get my point.
cannijoeJul 29, 2010
cuz they live in the 'burbs!
temsiJul 29, 2010
A $5 pack of Trojans will make any soccer mom FEEL safe.
memphisleakJul 30, 2010
Not if you're using them, they'll feel NOTHING!
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
110pctJul 29, 2010
Especially when all they listen to is the faux fear and doubt machine.
zumieznoskateJul 30, 2010
cheaper then a mini van...
marx2kJul 30, 2010
Get with the times. Yukon XL
zumieznoskateJul 30, 2010
you're right.
llanowarJul 28, 2010
This cost would be no problem if the war accomplished something real. Most it does, however, is no more than spending money while ruining lives.
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
Since it's not even close to an all out war, these wars being more like military skirmishes, I say it's good the American government is trying to eliminate terrorists. Can't let them foster and breed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kralJul 29, 2010
We've likely produced waaaay more terrorists than we've killed. And now Pakistan is apparently siding with the Taliban per those leaked documents which is just wonderful considering they have nuclear weapons. Complete and total f**king failure of a war.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
Terrorists aren't like animals, where two terrorists get together and make a baby terrorist. We create new terrorists by having accidental civilian causalities.
That young teenaged boy who studies hard and enjoys school just watched his father explode because of a "slightly off-target" smart bomb. What do you think his reaction is going to be? "At least the Americans are doing the right thing most of the time?"
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
"We've likely produced waaaay more terrorists than we've killed."
Doubt it.
"And now Pakistan is apparently siding with the Taliban per those leaked documents which is just wonderful considering they have nuclear weapons."
Pakistan has always sided against the U.S. Even before 9/11. They have generally always hated America.
"Terrorists aren't like animals, where two terrorists get together and make a baby terrorist."
No, they convince others. That's how it always has been..
"We create new terrorists by having accidental civilian causalities. " There may be a few cases of that. "Accidental civilian causalities" will happen. It's a facet of war that, although hasn't been eliminated, the U.S. has done a good job of lowering the numbers. But the majority of terrorists are ones who grow up brainwashed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gizram84Jul 28, 2010
Why do liberals still trust Obama? On top of the fact that he has done a complete 180 in terms of his stance on Iraq, he let everyone down with this disgusting pretend-healthcare bill that amounts to higher taxes and a gun to everyone's head saying, "You better buy insurance from these great corporations (that I pretend to hate) or else we're going to tax you more". On top of all that, this financial reform bill is a disaster. It does nothing to stop the bulls**t that caused the recession and only hurts small business by burying them in more regulation, paperwork and bureaucracy. he is more of a corporatist than Bush was.
Please can someone explain how anyone, from either side of the political spectrum can actually think Obama is doing a good job?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fredfredricksonJul 28, 2010
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Just because you have irrational and / or insane fears about the healthcare plan doesn't mean everyone does. And it surely doesn't mean that the president is doing a bad job either.
All things considered, I think he's doing a fine job. There are some things that I wish he had done differently, and some things I still hope he has time to get done with before his term(s) are up, but for now, I had reasonable expectations for the man, and he is living up to most of them.
midgetmouseJul 29, 2010
I would be afraid when Polosi says we need to pass a bill with huge implications "too see what's in it". And then laughs.
s73v3rJul 29, 2010
If retards like you hadn't been screaming about "Death Panels" and "Socialism!", perhaps we could have had an actual, honest debate on the matter, and come up with something great for this country, something the rest of the civilized world already has. But no, f**kholes like you had to turn the entire thing into a shouting match over who can say the most retarded thing the loudest.
mattjaJul 29, 2010
and as a result, forced what could have been a great bill into a mere starting point
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
What the f**k does this have to do with Obama? Did you miss the fact that it's a total from 2001? Are you pissed at him because his time machine isn't working?
Clearly it's his fault for not going back in time and becoming president in 2000 so he could avoid war altogether.
What kind of f**king idiot throws up liberals and Obama in the middle of a f**king discussion about the cost of war since 2001?
Are you really that f**king stupid? And I'm asking in all seriousness.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
because he hasn't stopped it. He hasn't done anything to invoke the 'change' he promised, except mire the country further into recession and closer to financial collapse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mattropolisJul 29, 2010
Honestly - even though the health care reform forces you to buy from a private insurer, I'm more in favor of that than single payer. If the money all went to the government who 'promised' to cover you later - you're going to get the same lies and stealing you see from the medicare/medicate problem. BOTH programs are slated by every budget analsis on either side of the aisle to be bankrupt by 2020 and 2030. Do you think the government would do any better with an entirely NEW program just as large that they tax you for?
Neither party is for real fiscal reform/integrity. They both pass their pet pork-barrel pet projects (wars/govt programs/etc) and just kick the can of paying for it down the road while pointing across the aisle. Heck - why should they care? They'll be out of office when the bill comes due anyway. Meanwhile they keep their cool govt positions and then when the bill comes - they'll act all shocked, call it an emergency, and pass all kinds of amazing new taxes to 'rescue' us. We're an emergency based country now. Nobody plans for the future - we just get hit by the truck and act like nobody ever saw it coming even though analysts had been saying it for years. (I remember a NOVA show showing that the levee systems in Louisiana in the mid 90's wouldn't survive a hurricane hit - and they said it was a matter of time even then). The government then uses the 'crisis' to enact even more taxes/infringe your civil liberties.
If you want to see the direction we're headed - California is a good indicator.
yeahwhatever58Jul 29, 2010
"If you want to see the direction we're headed - California is a good indicator."
California is a perfect example of how liberal spending policies will ruin a state. What is really revealing is that the usual spending on wars rhetoric can't be applied to California since the state's budget doesn't send money for Iraq or Afghanistan. California is bust because of it's inability to control it's spending and it's totally out of touch approach to creating a business friendly environment. The state has been in liberal control for a very long time now and what California is today is a direct result of that control.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rJul 29, 2010
I have no idea if you're being facetious or not.
treehugger87Jul 29, 2010
Please can someone explain how anyone, from either side of the political spectrum, could possibly take Gizram's post seriously?
Here's a tip: if you want people to take you seriously you do not start your post with an attack on "liberals". I am liberal and agree that Obama appears to be as committed to corporate interests as Bush was, with a few exceptions (Obama does appear to be in favor of regulation and oversight for industry, and is doing a *much* better job than Bush did on putting accountability in place for Government spending on corporate interests). Why not make your point in a way that will get your point across instead of prompting people to bury you after reading the first line?
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
What the hell does this have to do with Obama? Why do conservatives insist on making everything a partisan issue? As a moderate who doesn't believe EITHER party is in it for us, the sooner you start thinking for yourself Gizram, the better.
We can blame both parties for continuing the military industrial complex instead of making the hard fiscal choice of limiting military spending just like most other government departments. Why is it the military gets a blank check to do anything, while our own education and healthcare services are constantly being scrutinized? Ironic that we could barely pass healthcare reform (which is not the plan I truly wanted, but I'll take it for now) yet this war funding bill passed without incident.
My take on the wars are that we should've listened to George Washington's exit speech: never get entangled in the foreign policies of other nations. Many of his words in that speech still ring true today.
chadsexingtimeJul 29, 2010
Democrats are not liberals, please stop calling them that.
waxjonasJul 29, 2010
Wasn't TARP (the bank bailout) passed (or at least initially proposed) under the Bush administration? Didn't Bush start the 2 wars Iraq and Afghanistan? Didn't the passed health-care legislation include many concessions that were demanded by the Republicans that didn't end up voting for the bill anyway? Is gizram84 ignorant (and possibly undereducated) about politics and fact? I'm not making accusations, I'm just asking questions here.
s73v3rJul 29, 2010
TARP was passed under Bush, and originally had no oversight. Obama took over, and actually went and did stuff to get the banks to pay back, and so far some 70% of the loans have been paid back.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
"he let everyone down with this disgusting pretend-healthcare bill that amounts to higher taxes and a gun to everyone's head saying, "You better buy insurance from these great corporations (that I pretend to hate) or else we're going to tax you more."
He didn't write the bill. The republicans refused to vote for it without the "buy insurance from these corporations" s**t added to it.
Learn how laws are made before you blame Obama for them.
diggdiggingJul 29, 2010
"He didn't write the bill. The republicans refused to vote for it without the "buy insurance from these corporations" s**t added to it."
Are you serious? There were no Republicans who voted for the bill, not one.
The truth of the matter is that the Democrats themselves wouldn't even vote on the piece of s**t with out the "buy insurance from these corporations" s**t added to it", and 34 of them still voted no.
And while Obama may not have written the bill, he sure the f**k signed it.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rJul 29, 2010
No republicans may have voted for the bill, but they sure as hell put all kinds of s**t in there.
xmascarol7Jul 29, 2010
if you're so concerned about the way things are going, stop whining about it on digg and go do something about it.
although i'd wager from the how uninformed your post was that you'd have little luck in this endeavor and actually cause more problems than good (exhibit a: all the unemployed people who've taken to the ranks of the tea party).
it's people like this who are the reason america is going to be in the s**tter fairly soon. we need more people to stop bitching and moaning and start taking action and growing our economy back.
janineeeJul 29, 2010
S wait. I need to write this down, trying to keep my folders of talking points organized. Today is Obama a corporatist or a socialist?
starrodkirbyAug 8, 2010
Hey, let's not forget that Bush started a war in the wrong country for the wrong reasons, and destroyed Iraq instead of fixing it. That lead to greater hatred of the U.S., leading to sympathy/support for Al Qaeda, leading to more bombings and killings, leading to even greater hate of the U.S., leading to sympathy/support for Al Qaeda, leading to more bombings and killings, and so on. An endless circle of hate. These wars caused America's TRADE SURPLUS to become a crippling BUDGET DEFICIT. So Bush left office, giving our country's f**ked up affairs to the poor sap after him, Obama.
At least Obama scrapped the "bomb and kill" method with a new strategy, called BUILDING AND PROTECTING SCHOOLS (mostly for marginalized girls and poor kids). Schools are the only thing that can make a country self-sufficient, and removes any basis for joining terrorist groups. Unsurprisingly, terrorist groups hate schools. So the U.S. military, in addition to fighting known terrorists and funding schools, must do the daunting task of protecting those schools, the kids who go there, and most importantly, the teachers. That costs money. And that is why military spending is up.
But why schools? Apparently, Obama and his generals were smart and knew that the core of every successful state is public education. (e.g. Great Britain, France, Pre-WW1 Germany(Prussia), every powerful dynasty in China including today's China, Japan, Turkey, and most importantly, AMERICA.) Education leads to an understanding and appreciation for rights. Education allows for increased economic capability. Education creates world powers. This answers why third-world countries (Angola, Liberia, Haiti, etc.) are poor and stay that way. But I must stress that not just any education can suffice. Authoritarian regimes have education. (Maoist China, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, Venezula, and also, all terrorist recruiting stations) But why do they never become successful world powers? The answer: they fill their education with lies. In order to legitimatize their ideas about why the leader gets everything nice and you just get the bullet, or maybe why you should get up and fight, they must indoctrinate you. And they prefer leaving the populace stupid.
Look, Obama may have done things wrong at times, or gave the wrong message. But when you people blame Obama for the national debt, the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, or having too much power, it just shows that we put too much faith in a person who we gave little control of the government. And we still expect him to solve everything, or use as a person to blame for America's huge problems, which never could have been caused by this one man. (Our founding fathers guaranteed that the President should never deserve all the praise of good governance, nor should he be take sole blame for bad governance.) That's sad.
starrodkirbyAug 8, 2010
P.S. Before you start showing an inconsistency in my essay, keep in mind that Bush stretched his powers to the limit when he decided to invade Iraq. However, Even though the President has the power to "wage war", only Congress has the power to declare it, and then send Americans to war. This was explicitly written by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, to prevent a single person from turning us into a war mongering state. Truthfully, this is Congress' fault, because they have not declared war since 1941, and they quietly passed the power to the president during the fear of the Cold War. So we have been in (technically) illegal perpertual wars from Vietnam forward. And this time, in Iraq, we managed not only to wage illegal wars violating our constitution, but violating the a bigger, international constitution, the United Nations Charter.
“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” Source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art2
At no point in time has the UN Security council all agreed that an invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. The only resolution passed that can partially legitimatize the invasion is UN Security Council Resolution 1441, and it did not call for an invasion. Although it might have led to some sort of intervention, The U.S. and Britain decided to screw waiting for a resolution, and invade anyway. (well, that resolution would certainly not have allowed US control of the occupation, which would have defeated the purpose of invading)
Before you tell me that the UN is not a legitimate higher authority (as it is controlled by Freemasons or whatever people believe in anyway) and will lead to one-world government, the UN has ZERO political power anyway. It has consistently failed to stop wars, crush dictatorships, and more importantly, intervene correctly. For example, the UN, due to it's security council, only serves the interests of whoever is on it. That meant for most of the cold war, it was an American stooge. And they decided to support the Khmer Rouge simply because it was against Vietnam, even when they were proven to have conducted one of the most horrifying, comprehensive genocides, which even the Holocaust pales in comparison to. It got so bad that, when the UN turned a blind eye, Vietnam decided to conduct it's own peacekeeping campaign by invading Cambodia itself, saving it from total hell. The puppet state following it was heaven compared to Democatic Kampuchea, allowing Cambodia to overcome poverty and isolation following those dark days. Sadly, America did not want another communist state, and the Khmer Rouge, no matter what it did, was an ally against communism. And they supported attempts to put it back as the government of Cambodia. When the UN was emancipated from the cold war, when they wanted to stop the war in Darfur, not a single nation in the Security Council did anything for 2 years Therefore no action could be taken. So any allegations of the UN controlling the US is bulls**t. The US controlling the UN, however, is not.
r0am3rJul 29, 2010
If you add up the costs of both wars and then consider the costs of the bail-outs, you now realize that the bailouts have exceeded the war costs (up to this point). How insane is this??? FUBAR on all counts. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jul 29, 2010
When you only factor the costs and ignore the benefits it is easy to think the sky is falling because of the cost of the TARP bailouts. What you ignore is that most of Obama's TARP money has not been spent (not needed) and that the banks that have paid back their TARP money have profited the Government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html
vatosplaceJul 29, 2010
It's Bush's Tarp money, Bush signed the law.
s73v3rJul 29, 2010
Bush also made no effort to collect the money back. Obama started to put the screws to the banks to start paying back money.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
I'd rather invest money in MY OWN COUNTRY than throw over a trillion dollars of war spending and rebuilding at a country that didn't want really even want us there.
treehugger87Jul 29, 2010
Well put.
gsxraddictJul 29, 2010
i dug you down, not because I diagree spending money on our own country is bad, but because you're too gullable to realize none of that money benefited our country, just the banks and major corporate fat cats, and the Fed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
Then you dug me down for an unrelated reason. I didn't say that I completely agreed with the domestic spending that HAS occurred, simply that domestic spending is more beneficial to us in general than throwing it at a country that didn't want us there.
Besides, if you ARE talking about present government spending, surely you can't think that the Iraq War has been more beneficial to the United States than saving our auto industry or at least TRYING to improve healthcare (I might not agree with what was passed, but as an individual market purchaser, I can tell you NOTHING is worse than the system we have now other than no healthcare at all).
Overall, you took it from a very generalized comment about hopeful future policy to a specific event in time, which was not what I was referring to. But, since you took it there, I'd still say you were wrong since the auto industry bailout has already saved many manufacturing jobs and increased output and quality, which is the true way for us to get out of this mess. If we don't make high-value tangible things and export them (like Germany has successfully done even with a developed labor market), then I don't believe we'll ever find our way out of this recession. Not everyone belongs in college, and the sooner we realize this and give them proper training for a high-paying skilled job instead of sending them to fast food and retail, the sooner we'll realize a new level of greatness.
pimpofpixelsJul 29, 2010
If the Teabaggers would just take their heads out of their collective asses and fight against this boondoggle for a moment, we might actually be able to turn this country in the right direction.
teichenauerJul 29, 2010
Old tired line: It's all George Bush's fault.
New tired line: It's all the Tea Party's fault.
Yea.
pimpofpixelsJul 29, 2010
Not what I meant to say. What I meant to say was that the Tea Party is now a big political movement. If the progressives and the Tea Party folk could all agree that a great place to cut government waste would be to end the wars, then we could probably make that happen... together.
If we could agree on that one thing, we could make it happen... Then we could get back to fighting about other issues.
That's, of course, presuming that the tea party folk are rational people, and I may be mistaking in presuming that they could see the war for the boondoggle that it is.
eupatorusJul 29, 2010
Boondoggle.
govtdoesnotworkJul 29, 2010
Uh, some of us were fighting the IDEA of an Iraq War before Bush invaded. Buried for the usual Digg-lefty whiny cluelessness about the Tea Party.
pimpofpixelsJul 29, 2010
No no no.... not at all. Actually, I think that the debt is a huge problem, and I didn't like the way the health care bill did very little to cut costs. I was just saying, that if we could unite about cutting the war budget, we might actually get that done. Or do you think the tea party is happy enough with $3000 per-capita of war debt?
govtdoesnotworkJul 29, 2010
I don't think the Tea Party, collectively, has thought that much beyond "it seems we are fiscally f**ked," and while that's a good start it's nowhere near solving the problems of the welfare-warfare state. What I dislike are the blanket accusations of racism, though, because they lead to further bulls**t (like what Breitbart did).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kralJul 29, 2010
The days of the Tea Party representing Libertarians is over. The Republicans co-opted your movement, bro.
govtdoesnotworkJul 29, 2010
Isn't that kind of like saying "all blacks/whites vote for a certain party"? Yeah, they've got a failing brand, so they want to reach out, but the idea that libertarians have no influence on the Tea Party movement is laughable just like the dimwitted "they're all racists" allegation. The movement is really just for smaller government, and Republicans have yet to convince me they're on board in any way besides rhetorically.
pizzaman99Jul 29, 2010
Racist!
janineeeJul 29, 2010
you lumped yourselves together by referring to yourselves as the Tea Party
s73v3rJul 29, 2010
Why did you bring up the racist card? PimpofPixels didn't say anything to that end in his comment (unless he's edited it since then). The worst I saw is that he said they all have their heads up their asses.
shauncorleoneJul 30, 2010
@bobfell either you're a lying ass, or your anti-war protestors and tea party groups are incredibly small groups. "I saw the same faces then I see now". No, you didn't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
catalysisJul 29, 2010
Are you kidding? They were the ones calling everyone anti-American who even questioned the war. Now that it's unpopular, they just pretend like they were against it. I never saw a single teabagger stand up to defend any anti-war liberal in the run up to the Iraq war.
govtdoesnotworkJul 29, 2010
Bulls**t. I was there singing & signing petitions with the lefties before Bush went to war, and lying about it won't change that fact.
govtdoesnotworkJul 29, 2010
If Digg's idiotic lefties would admit some of us have been against war all along, they'd seem a lot more honest to "Teabaggers" like me, who were protesting it the whole time whether you want to admit it or not.
riggoJul 29, 2010
Lefties?....Honest?....but, that wouldn't be as sensational......
ostrakonxJul 29, 2010
I'm liberal and anti-Iraq, but I think this figure is pretty reasonable. It's only about 400/year per citizen. That comes out to the income tax of about 2-3 paychecks for me. Granted that money could be better spent elsewhere, but it's not nearly as bad as it sounds by just saying the huge figure alone.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drethedogJul 29, 2010
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/28/where-did-the-money.html
pleckosJul 29, 2010
I propose that anyone who voted for Bush pay for the war. I'll put my $3328 towards other things like public schools, maintaining roads, and bacon.
frink14Jul 29, 2010
Then I want anyone who voted for Obama to pay for the bailouts, economic "recovery" act, and health care tax for people being forced to buy a product for just being here!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
frink14Jul 29, 2010
He gets dugg up, but anything I say about your messiah Obama you digg me down. I'm getting sick of you libtards.
kelm0Jul 29, 2010
You remember that the bailouts were passed under Bush, right?
And I'm sure we could argue for hours about the specifics of the plan, but would you rather not have health insurance?
yeahwhatever58Jul 29, 2010
+1
weirddemonJul 29, 2010
Sorry.
I couldn't hear you over your "WAAAHHHHH!"
treehugger87Jul 29, 2010
Fine, I'll pay my share of the Obama bailout ("Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent estimates of the cost, as of April 12, 2010, is down to $89 billion, which is 42% less than the taxpayers' cost of the Savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s."), which comes to $289.90 and gladly accept the annual checks that come in as recovered banks pay off their share of the loan they were given.
By the way, $3328 is just the start. It's going to cost every American another $8143.15 over the lifetime of the soldiers wounded in these wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
bfogarty27Jul 29, 2010
compare the cost of healthcare to that massive number for the wars..... and what does each one do for you?
treehugger87Jul 29, 2010
Again, I will gladly pay my share of the $849 billion health care bill ($2765.41 over 10 years, or $276.51 a year) in exchange for the lowering of our deficit by $130 billion over the same period with the added bonus that with everyone insured, my health care costs will probably go down.
I currently pay about $17,000 a year for health insurance ($10k a year) and uncovered expenses for my entire family, so my share of the health care bill seems pretty insignificant by comparison.
thanatosstJul 29, 2010
$3328 worth of bacon? Count me in.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
and bungee chords and go karts
dustblinkJul 29, 2010
You could buy about 2 pack of bacon a week (depending on price) for that amount of money.
BarryMenilowJul 29, 2010
@DesertTripper
As you should. Bacon is a right not a privilege.
docbob84Jul 29, 2010
@DesertTripper. That's sad, very sad. Maybe you should have some bacon to cheer yourself up?
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
If you really think that Bush is the sole cause of the unnecessary war, think again. We have a complex system of government, not a monarchy.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
Dude, come on, dont pop his bubble.
This is the "Bush is the cause of all the worlds problems" website were on here.
marx2kJul 30, 2010
Well, he was the Decider.
hewhopoopsJul 29, 2010
The war against swine must end.
xiqatJul 29, 2010
Why don't you tell Obama to keep his campaign promise and bring the troops home? Oh that's right, they're all liars.
atarioJul 30, 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gb_pqPii4Cept0a4t3ypM40uh73A
Reasons why this is still a bad thing in 3...2...1...
jahredJul 29, 2010
I propose everyone who voted for Obama pay for health care and the bailouts. Bury me for not agreeing with you
bfogarty27Jul 29, 2010
who passed the bailouts?
bustaballsJul 29, 2010
And who passed on the authority to give Bush full access to Afgan and Iraq? Same s**t.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
I'll bury you for being factually incorrect. Bush approved the bailouts.
footballer7604Jul 29, 2010
buried because I am already paying for others health care
treehugger87Jul 29, 2010
As I said above,
- I will gladly pay my share of the $849 billion health care bill ($2765.41 over 10 years, or $276.51 a year) in exchange for the lowering of our deficit by $130 billion over the same period with the added bonus that with everyone insured, my health care costs will probably go down.
- I will gladly pay my share of the Obama bailout ("Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent estimates of the cost, as of April 12, 2010, is down to $89 billion, which is 42% less than the taxpayers' cost of the Savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s."), which comes to $289.90 and gladly accept the annual checks that come in as recovered banks pay off their share of the loan they were given.
You have been convinced by Fox news and your AM radio that the health care bill and the bailout are putting us in to debt, but the truth is that the wars, the ongoing care of our military serviceman - an estimated $2.5 trillion that will need to be spent - and the absurd and largely unaccounted amount we spend on the military each year are what are killing us.
thegreat0neJul 29, 2010
And I want everyone who voted for a democrat or a republican at the federal level who in turn voted to expand the federal government in the past 75 years to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all of the wars that have happened since 1945 and all of the future obligations of those programs and wars.
cowboy1015Jul 29, 2010
Yeah. And let the terrorist ruin our lives.
marx2kJul 30, 2010
Sounds like the terrorists are already ruining your life.
glxyjonesJul 29, 2010
Someone should run for office on the $3328 worth of bacon platform.
wavyjJul 29, 2010
No funding the war? So these public schools you speak of, will they be teaching English? That is, if it's not the target of a terrorist attack.
Operation Bacon may proceed as planned.
I'll be sure to *chop* it as soon as it reaches my desk!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
iamtheguyJul 29, 2010
DEMOCRACY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY
thegreat0neJul 29, 2010
We don't live in a democracy, and for good reason.
janineeeJul 29, 2010
mmmmm bacon
danconiaJul 29, 2010
Me too, but mostly just bacon.
triclipseJul 30, 2010
OK idiot -what about Obomba who is keeping all the wars going? What a joke.
fauxbro1983Jul 29, 2010
actually, i believe only about 150 million americans are in the workforce and pay income tax.
dragon0196Jul 29, 2010
How many of those people work for the DoD, Raytheon, Boeing, etc? They also received that money. It doesn't just disappear.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
It wouldn't just disappear if they were employed making something useful either.
adc86Jul 29, 2010
1. Go to Youtube
2. Search for any video of a military bomb.
3. After the bomb explodes, note what is left. *This is what the money bought*
4. Find a copy of Frederic Bastiat's "That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen" and read the Broken Window Fallacy.
hallisnaJul 29, 2010
@adc86
The material cost are probably a very small part of the cost of the war. Training, Personel, Shipping, Food Services, Construction, Overhead (Secretaries, support staff), Manufacturing, and many other jobs and inputs are required to engage in war.
I'm not justifying the war, I personally think that its not in our best interest to be there. However, there certainly is a case to make that the spending goes beyond merely the commodity prices of those bombs.
There are a lot of people who are making a living in jobs directly or indirectly related to military engagements overseas. An example from personel experience...My family owns a small business specialized in providing mental health services to people who have PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). They have been able to hire 3 new therapist due to an influx of patients coming home from overseas wars. IS this good? NO. But what I am saying is that it does stimulate to the economy in some way.
dcaput02Jul 29, 2010
Life comes from destruction, disorder, and chaos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krcNIWPkNzA
compulsive1Jul 29, 2010
Yes, but you might as well have the government pay you to move dirt from one hole to another over and over again- at least innocent people would not die as the result, and government would be stimulating the economy.
dragon0196Jul 29, 2010
I disagree with the broken window fallacy, how about that? Or at least that it isn't a perfect parallel in this instance....
It argues the shopkeeper loses because he has to buy a new window, but in the case of the government, he would be buying the new window from himself.
The government pays money to companies to make war materials. The companies pay employees and taxes, sending money back to the gov't. Material costs are MINIMAL, most goes to labor. Those employees then go back out and spend the money and pay taxes, distributing money to other individuals who will repeat the process.
@compulsive1 - I'm not defending the loss of lives, merely pointing out that the "cost of war" is not as simple as adding up expenses and creating misleading headlines.
@Grummond - if wishes were fishes. I'm unemployed, no one is paying me to make something useful.
relic180Jul 29, 2010
@dragon
If he buys the window from himself, the overall net effect is that he has 1 less window. Sounds like a loss to me.
blackoculusJul 29, 2010
Yeah cause those companies have nothing to do with parts of the government like NASA.
/sIfYouCouldn'tTell
adc86Jul 30, 2010
@hallisna I hear you, but my argument is unchanged-- while it would be worse for your family, particularly (awesome business idea, btw-- an actual need being fulfilled), if those soldiers didn't have to spend money to bring them back to a healthy level they could be buying any number of other things-- be it food, entertainment, boats, cars, whatever soldiers would want to buy.
@dragon0196 You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't mean the shopkeeper suddenly hasn't had to pay for the window. Also, keep in mind what the government is-- who gives it its power: us. The people have the right to form a government, and (apparently) did. Any and all of its assets it takes from the people (usually by force, which raises a question of morality, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion) .
So the government pays companies for 'war materials' *using money it took from the economy in the first place.* Therefore, we now have an economy less able to buy the things it wanted, and WarMaterialsCo quite a bit bigger than can otherwise be supported. Labor is the same-- instead of developing products that serve the economy, these people are receiving money taken from the economy to (as of late) kill and intimidate. There's something to be said about DARPA feeding the private sector with research, but study after study has shown that government research works more slowly than private research, and that funding it displaces private research.
Further, there is something to be said in your scenario of the government feeding itself through spending and taxes of the innate inefficiencies of the processes. Some studies have shown up to a 40% loss in tax revenue simply through government mismanagement. When you have all the guns and a guaranteed flow of income there is simply no incentive to work to manage costs. Each cycle through your suggested repetition shaves more and more off into the void. The important thing to remember in this case is *who the money comes from.* This is not a comforting thought, but it is exactly what's going on.
Ke11inJul 29, 2010
So the revised calculation would be....$6,813. Yikes.
stilesjaJul 29, 2010
Per year cost $757
ghostrunner1Jul 29, 2010
Walmart.
brooks007Jul 29, 2010
You forgot to factor in that the rich pay more then the poor. For us normal folks it come out to like $200 bucks.
naysonJul 29, 2010
Everybody in the world is paying, surely? I live in the UK, but I drink Coca-Cola, buy Nike training shoes and watch Hollywood movies. I have an Xbox, drive a Ford and listen to an iPod.
I spend money on more American owned products than I could possibly remember off the top of my head. I almost certainly spend money on things that I am unaware are American owned. Money I spend ends up in the coffers of American companies which then gets paid to the US Government in tax revenue, which in turn gets spent on the war effort.
When you stop to think there are hundreds of millions, if not billions of people like me who all indirectly contribute to American coffers then your figure of $3-6000 comes down quite a lot. It also proves that the cost of war is impossible to calculate.
adc86Jul 30, 2010
Eh... all those companies have UK subsidiaries, and the US Government doesn't take pounds anyways. The UK has business taxes too...
Further, it'd be a grave mistake to think that the US government actually *pays* for anything it does. That's for us schmucks in the real world. Bush intentionally cooked the budget to not include war appropriations, passing them separately instead (and congress was right there helping, ftr). I believe Obama has used the same strategy. If you think the interest on a loan for a Ford is bad (and I certainly wouldn't be so rude as to suggest that you borrowed for your car) just wait for the effects of the war to add up.
naysonJul 30, 2010
The UK subsidiaries will pay into the mother company though, and some of that finds its way into Uncle Sam's pocket through taxes. Getting into the specifics is kinda pointless here as it detracts from the wider point that the US war effort isnt funded exclusively by its citizens.
anxcaptainJul 29, 2010
not it!
shediggsJul 29, 2010
Put it on my tab.
moducJul 29, 2010
Right, the amount is wrong. 3328 is average also for elderly, unemployed (not tax there), new born, and under age for working. This, adds to the dollar amount for taking care of the handicaps because of the war, the deaths, it'll be much more.
kibblesnbittsJul 29, 2010
BUT BUT BUT $50 BILLION IN UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF WILL EXPLODE OUR DEFICIT!!!!
smacksawJul 29, 2010
That's $161.11 using the same math as the source pic!
Oh noes!
atarioJul 30, 2010
Yeah, but that's to help people instead of hurting them. So that would be bad.
snoogsJul 29, 2010
Pretty sure this trillion in the war is 'unemployment relief' as well... A lot of the people serving in Iraq are there because that was their only option. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spazattack5000Jul 29, 2010
That's always scary to think of. America sends it's dumbest and least employable people overseas to do the fighting. And people wonder why they do such a piss poor job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blackoculusJul 29, 2010
Way to paint our armed forces with such a broad brush stroke. Why don't you yell "baby killer!" at them when they come home while you're at it.
snoogsJul 29, 2010
Well, the reality is, if the war ended today, and all our foreign occupations ceased, and everyone gets sent home- there will be a lot of jobless vets sitting around. We simply have more people than jobs, and the military *employs* a s**t ton of them.
ghatidJul 29, 2010
Um, just because they've spent $1 Trillion on the "war" doesn't mean $50 Billion isn't still a s**tload...
110pctJul 29, 2010
No, not by any measure, but it's money 1000% better spent...
thebigbadJul 29, 2010
We can be thankful they haven't declared a War on Unemployment like they have declared a War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, etc. Then we'd surely be f**ked.
willthewayAug 4, 2010
try thinking long term.
funkymonkey68Jul 29, 2010
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/cuhb6/332864/
weirddemonJul 29, 2010
Why the hell would you link to reddit on Digg?
You had to know you were going to get thumbed down.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
Sometimes it's worth saying things that are unpopular but right.
weirddemonJul 29, 2010
I agree. But this isn't one of those things.
You're comparing you linking reddit comments on Digg to someone who shouts, "Abortion is murder" or whatever is not in favor now. I can never remember :P
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
He's linking to the comments because the screenshot was created/taken by a reddit member. It's one thing to trade stuff that can be found around the internet, but in this case I think linking to reddit is perfectly justified, given the content was created by a user from that site. If he just linked to the picture instead, it would go to the same pic that user luckykobold uploaded (with even the same URL that the reddit user originally uploaded to).
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
ow! my eyes! what has been seen cannot be unseen
hones2009Jul 29, 2010
Dugg for Civilization 4.
shmebberJul 29, 2010
Oh man, I forgot about that game. I think I'll go play it.
/yaysummer
fbass2000Jul 29, 2010
@biffen
but you have to make sure you have at least 3 units in each your cities to be effective, perhaps you should consider Police State to eliminate war weariness if you intend to have long wars
8bitgamingJul 29, 2010
Tell me more tips.
jadrianJul 29, 2010
I'll go ahead and be the devils advocate, and remind you that if you're going to analyse the costs of war, it's only fair to also look the revenues.
snoogsJul 29, 2010
Yeah, where's all that free oil they promised us when they took over?
thebigbadJul 29, 2010
All over a pelican on the Gulf Coast.
spazattack5000Jul 29, 2010
Do you mean the revenue made by defense contractors that are paid with everyone's tax dollars?
ninjaboyJul 29, 2010
You joke about free oil, but i think most people would support the war if we got cheaper gas because of it.
"BRING OUR TROOPS HOME....oh woah, we get gas for $1 a gallon now.....SEND MORE TROOPS"
hellicusJul 29, 2010
What a hideous UI.
decoy26517Jul 29, 2010
It's a Mac, what do you expect?
adc86Jul 29, 2010
What? Office? Yeah, they're not very good at that.
rezivorJul 29, 2010
Ya. Office blows
cobraclutchJul 29, 2010
How do you do maths in Word?
diggwithaforkAug 6, 2010
Hideous? If by hideous you mean refined and visually appealing to the eye, then yes. Hideous it is.
Compared to Windows 7? Ubuntu? OS X is the best UI I could find.
diggwithaforkAug 6, 2010
you can tell the poster is an amateur OS X user, he's still got his dashboard and iphoto icon in his dock. What a waste of space.
threedee912Aug 7, 2010
He has mostly default icons on his dock, which isn't auto-hidden and takes up screen real estate. He took a screenshot of a webpage, and put in in another screenshot, and took a screenshot of a zoomed-in Google page. And he has a busy pixelated background. And he's still using the 2004 version of Office:Mac. I say Mac noob.
ghounds07Jul 29, 2010
The US Government is such a corrupt business, why isn't it #1 on the Forbes 500? Those are some legit numbers.
ghounds07Jul 29, 2010
*Fortune 500, oops.
doghoundJul 29, 2010
I didn't digg you down, but I might be able to explain why they are: because the US government isn't incorporated as a business and, therefore, is not qualified to be on the Fortune 500 list?
ghounds07Jul 29, 2010
Well my comment was half joke half truth, obviously they aren't actually an accredited business.
On another note, we both have "ghound" in our name, that is pretty crazy.
absurdparadoxJul 29, 2010
Here is why it is not on that list:
The businesses on that list don't make the majority of their money from direct theft. The US Government does.
superkendallJul 29, 2010
Actually, if you think about it that's a bargain given how much life in Iraq has improved.
And if you really want to pull up a calculation that will scare you try dividing the national debt by every person in the U.S. You owe $42,948.74 - and that's just today.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smacksawJul 29, 2010
A bargain would have been if they did it themselves and the value would have been greater because it came from within. Isn't it the conservatives who claim you never appreciate something unless you work for it and if you get it handed to you, you take it for granted?
yeahwhatever58Jul 29, 2010
Yes, and now for the first time in those countries, those people are going to be allowed to work for themselves, go to school for themselves and try to make something of themselves...all because of our charity to those countries....after all, isn't it the liberals who claim to be the people who are for the equality of all humans and are always pulling for the underdog??Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pureeviljesterJul 29, 2010
don't choke on that kool-aid
jojo21391Jul 29, 2010
oh yea not to mention the many innocent that died in that process, all those other little girls that dont get to go to school. HEY STILL A GREAT BARGIN..............right?
odkinJul 29, 2010
I'd throw in a couple of extra grand if it would go to taking out both Tehran and Mecca.
pimpofpixelsJul 29, 2010
They told us why we needed it: They lied.
They told us what it would do for us: They lied.
They told us how much it would cost: They lied
The military industrial complex is basically like a crooked used-car dealership, with Fox News and politicians as their seedy salesman. They got us to buy this clunker of a war that we didn't need, can't afford, and as usual... No warranty.
insanebrainJul 29, 2010
'They' always lie. How stupid is you ?
tarantulusJul 30, 2010
he are less stupider than you...
starrodkirbyAug 8, 2010
Want to be taken seriously? Get an education.
adc86Jul 29, 2010
I wonder at which point it will become 'throwing away your vote' to choose a Republican or a Democrat. At that point, one might as well not vote.
At that point, one might as well vote third party...
j0hnnyblazeJul 29, 2010
plus they have lost of weapons
bustaballsJul 29, 2010
Because the other mainstream news organizations weren't also promoting the wars? Give me a break.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
You're right, there. I remember watching the news and being dumbfounded that nobody seemed to be questioning it on the news, all of the major news stations.
bustaballsJul 30, 2010
Yes, I remember watching "Outfoxed". They showed the chart that on how all of the mainstream media outlets were surging in vast amounts of misinformation with Fox in the lead. Fox deserves every bit of criticism it gets but I hate how everyone on Digg (and everywhere else) ONLY mentions Fox regarding misinformation and bias. It's just like the people who blame Bush and Republicans for everything when, in many cases, Democrats are just as guilty of the same things. Republicans deserve the hate but Dems don't get the same hate from the same people.
After personally bashing Republicans and Bush for years, I've grown used to it and it only seems fair to blame others who are responsible as well. I'm not defending Fox or anyone else but I just hope for some fair blame to go around.
eraidersJul 29, 2010
I wouldn't say just that. We all opened Pandora's box on ourselves when the entire country supported going to war with....Afghanistan and was too short sighted to see what our government historically does when given an overwhelming majority of support for war. They were itching to get back to Iraq and we gave them the initial go-ahead.
The support for Afghanistan was like high 80's percentage wise right after 9/11, just because most of the country, including most of us, was short sighted does not make it any less of our fault. Putting off the blame is exactly how Washington works/gets away with things, and it's what the American people collectively are doing now. It's not our fault, we never said to go over there, we just wanted to stay in Afghanistan. Well guess what, there was nothing in Afghanistan and going to war with such a place to prevent terrorist attacks is illogical, if we really wanted to be safer we should have secured our borders to the max, but being Americans we wanted revenge also, so we got both and the securing our borders isn't really preventing as much as it could be if we truly were scared and wanted protection. We gave them a cop-out, we didn't think it through going back to the middle east, the country wanted blood but forgot how our government has historically operated when occupying countries and detecting threats. No, we gave this to ourselves. Thinking anything less shows a fundamental flaw in your logic, and shows you really have no clue and are a sheeple. It also shows you are probably not old enough to remember the first Gulf War in detail or remember the Soviet's war over there. The writing is on the walls, we just don't think things through and expect it to be ok when we either throw money at it, or our opinion changes and popular support by the Roman Mob...I mean American People turns for the other side.
theinformerJul 29, 2010
"They told us why we needed it: They lied.
They told us what it would do for us: They lied.
They told us how much it would cost: They lied"
Sounds like you are talking about Obamacare.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaJul 29, 2010
swing and a miss
mattdiggsitJul 30, 2010
and now we're f**cked
cockofdoodieJul 29, 2010
Does anyone have a link to that site?
stevemtylerJul 29, 2010
white collar welfare is expensive
romantictireJul 29, 2010
Please, show your work.
dmbhaggisJul 29, 2010
I guess I am the only one that laughed at this...
mattropolisJul 29, 2010
Think that's bad? The payout for the bank/finanical crisis bailout was $8333.33 per person. It ended up being about $2000/person after the banks paid most of what they owed back - but still - we can do this calculation with all kinds of government spending. Want another one? Try medicare/medicade. It currently rivals the US military expenditures, and care/cade are expected to grow by leaps and bounds as the boomer hits.
We're all seriously f*cked in the next 20 years. I've already started finding ways to diversifying my money outside the US and planning for a retirement that *assumes* that the US government will be wallowed in debt and budget crisis collapses every few years - like California. So this means the dollar will have greatly dropped in value as we borrow heavily against it and become a debter nation. Interest rates will be high and borrowing hard, government services will continue to shrink or be spotty (ala California in it's current debt crisis), promised government programs you've paid into for years will be reneged on, and taxes will be pretty astronomical across the board to service the interest on the debt we owe. In short, don't invest in the dollar or dollar backed securities; and get your money into tax sheltered or overseas investments you can cash out of later as cleanly and without tax as possible. Diversify into other markets - like China - which has been seeing some pretty good growth and has over $7 trillion dollars in the bank. My foreign investments are all very positive for the last 2 years - my US ones are flat.
spypiratesJul 29, 2010
I'm not going to comment on the bulk of your post, but I'd point out that medicare/medicaid/the bailout has/had some sort of purpose (and by your own post's admission, they are each cheaper)
vhishiousJul 29, 2010
MURIKA IS TOO BIG TO FAIL.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
"We're all seriously f*cked in the next 20 years."
You've got that right. Anyone who thinks the economy will return to the way it was in 2007 and earlier anytime soon is in for a big letdown. This recession is going to last for decades. And it's the aging boomers that are the ones who are going to prolong it.
See: Japan 1980s to present day.
hivoltage815Jul 29, 2010
Couple a stagnant economy with a government forced to increase taxes to pay debt, and our standard of living is going to be severely altered over the long term. I don't want to act all greedy, but it is certainly nice to have a better lifestyle as a country.
bcoronelJul 29, 2010
AGE WAR!
hmyauhnoJul 29, 2010
capital investing is for suckers
hmyauhnoJul 29, 2010
oh how creative of you... LOL
bullitnutzAug 6, 2010
Allow me to point out that Arizona's budget deficit doubled from 2008 to 2009 and is currently sitting at 30% of it's total budget size. Their budget problems are bigger than California's because they never diversified their growth sectors and now they've had to sell their capitol building and lease it back.
So, it's disingenuous to act as though California has the worst budget problems in the country when Arizona's fiscal dysfunction dwarfs that of California.
jimv1983Aug 9, 2010
I'm actually totally fine with medicare/medicade spending. That actually benefits people. The wars are a total waste.
bluhat55Jul 29, 2010
War / Bacon = Delicious
sigmaman2Jul 29, 2010
CONSERVATIVE: "The $3300 per person went to ensure that Saddam Hussein didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction."
LIBERAL: "But Saddam Hussein never had Weapons of Mass Destruction."
CONSERVATIVE: "Aha!"
ronintetsuroJul 29, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
thanatosstJul 29, 2010
MODERATE: f**k it, I'm moving to Japan.
sigmaman2Jul 29, 2010
Touche'
adc86Jul 29, 2010
LIBERAL: *mental mastrubation*
CONSERVATIVE: *mental masturbation*
FIN.
bustaballsJul 29, 2010
This
snoogsJul 29, 2010
Lisa: I have this rock that keeps tigers away.
Homer: Well, how does it work?
Lisa: Um, it doesn't. But, you don't see any tigers around, right?
Homer: I'd like to buy that rock.
fenarisJul 29, 2010
MODERATE: Why are we even having this discussion??
LIBERAL & CONSERVATIVE : Shut Up! We're talking serious business here!! Pick a side or GTFO!!
455holeJul 29, 2010
ME: f**k all of you conservatives and liberals. I'm going to do whatever i want how and when i want. try to stop me.
adc86Jul 29, 2010
POLICE: Whatever you say, sir. Come with us.
jojo21391Jul 29, 2010
but wait what about Osama bin laden? didnt he play a part in why 4 planes crashed on 9/11 killing hundreds and hundreds of people..........oh wait. lets invest more than 2x that in IRAQ!!!! hey at least we got sadam hussain right............that counts for somthing!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
muttonAug 1, 2010
SLOTH: HEY YOU GUYS!!!!
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
But all that spending was OK...perfectly fine until 2008. At the point when Obama took office, then it became his fault, right?
"He's a'spendin' us into a black hole!"
Break those costs down and let's see:
1. Who STARTED the wars (durrrrrr)
2. What percentage was spent between 2001 and 2008
and let's see how that equates to a 'conservative' party at all.
And if you're a 'bagger, then let's discuss what the constitution says about nation building and occupying foreign land.
Yeah this sucks. Spending money sucks, especially when it's so much money and the costs are so unnecessary. Especially when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
(But republicans still haven't figured out the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, right?)
Want to see where your grandkids' money is being spent, republicans?
Take a good hard look.
yeahwhatever58Jul 29, 2010
Yeah, what about the other 12 trillion in debt??
pandawaJul 29, 2010
Largely spent on planes that never fly vis-a-vis the F-22
yeahwhatever58Jul 29, 2010
Okay yeah.....we spent 12 trillion for F-22's......got it....certainly makes sense to me.
110pctJul 29, 2010
Check the chart - looks like that 12 trillion started happening when Reagan was elected...
http://bit.ly/135LWv
Fiscal conservatism FTW!
yeahwhatever58Jul 29, 2010
110pct,
Yeah, and the debt has risen through both Dem and Repub presidents and through both Dem and Repub controlled congresses and continues today at break neck speed under a Dem president with a Dem controlled congress....so what's your point? If you are trying to say that all the debt was created by conservatism, you are very badly mistaken. It has been the lack of real conservatism that has allowed this runaway problem. My original comment responding to algae was to say that while war spending created some of the problem, war spending is BY FAR, not the greatest portion of our total debt.
So while you like to play the partisan game and point out a particular president....why don't you look at the whole total problem and explain it from that aspect instead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bmdubyaJul 29, 2010
I agree with you man. I'm not a democrat at all, but I hate listening to the Tea Party talk about the president spending a lot of money, and how pissed off they are about it, but when it is for a war because we are so threatened by a bunch of people who are so backwards in military technology, well then it is fine to spend a s**t load of money. Hypocrisy is destroying this country. Not socialism or communism or terrorism. Hypocrisy, and the lack of common sense.
maddhoppsJul 29, 2010
or common nonsense.
johndkJul 29, 2010
No the war wasn't ok when Bush was in office and it's certainly not ok now. But why is it still going on? Both parties are too easy on their party leaders.
bustaballsJul 29, 2010
I agree with you on the war, though, since 2008, this IS Obama's war. Obama made the decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, not withdraw from the region. However, our foreign policy doesn't even touch the stranglehold that the welfare state has on us. Even if we completely changed our foriegn policy, we'd still be going bankrupt due to medicaid, medicare, social security, and this new health care system. We have to print up money and borrow billions to sustain all of this. So, our children's money is being wasted mostly on socialistic polices. Your main point still remains true. The trillion dollars spent on wars and occupation should have been stayed in American's pockets.
aeroboyAug 1, 2010
How dare the government spend money on me, they should be spending money on blowing some brown people up!
myexsucksJul 29, 2010
Funny, the stimulus bill spent almost this entire sum -- in a FRACTION of the time! Look at all the good that's done us...
pureeviljesterJul 29, 2010
i blame Bush for getting us into it. and blame Obama for not getting us out like he promised.
A politician didn't keep a promise, go figure
deathtopenguinsAug 4, 2010
I clearly remember Obama saying he believed there should be more troops in Afghanistan. He said that we should pull out of Iraq and move troops to Afghanistan. He only promised to pull out of Iraq and it seems like a lot of people heard more than that. I don't blame either of the possible candidates for the presidency last election. We had no choice on this issue. Both candidates promised war in Afghanistan. This two party system sucks.
chaingunJul 29, 2010
I support the war!
(massive digg down imminent)
adc86Jul 29, 2010
Why?
On what moral grounds?
brklynmarkJul 29, 2010
Which one?
wompaJul 29, 2010
Obvious troll is obvious.
vatosplaceJul 29, 2010
Enlist.
jareddennisJul 29, 2010
http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/enlist.html
dakotazoutJul 29, 2010
You think he goes for the world conquest victory in Civ 4?
morrissey79Jul 29, 2010
What you spend 3328.64 dollars on? I'd likely buy some power nine Magic Cards. Maybe a Black Lotus and an Ancestrial Recal. Though the temptation of buying Jack Kirby's early Silver Surfer issues in Fantastic Four might be too tempting to pass up.
/what is wasting money anyways? Is there such thing? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fugeesnfunionsJul 29, 2010
If you're asking if I'd personally pay a measly 3k to have Saddam's bitch ass hung..
f**k. Yes.
thegreat0neJul 29, 2010
Well, that's fine. You have every right to send 3k to a private military to go take out Saddam for you. However there are quite a few people that have better ways of spending 3k than pissing off the craziest section of the world, and we'd like our money back.
ieatskunkJul 30, 2010
You tell yourself that the next time you put gas into your car.
thegreat0neJul 30, 2010
You sound a bit like a liberal here. Just as liberals think that people with more money than them think that those people owe them money, you seem to think that people with more oil than you owe you their oil at a low price. Is that the case?
Anyway, no. I won't tell myself that the next time I fill up my car. I'll tell myself how pitiful it is that our government has chosen to subsidize oil in the name of short term prosperity, making alternate sources of energy unable to compete with oil, having the effect that now in order to satisfy our hunger for oil we need to invade sovereign countries and kill hundreds of thousands of thousands of people. Had our government not chosen to subsidize oil, we would see that alternate sources of energy would have been much more able to compete all along, and perhaps now we wouldn't be dragged down in quagmires halfway around the world, stirring up hatred among the most insane people in the world, all the while causing us to go bankrupt back at home! And maybe you should consider that the next time you put gas in to your car.
drummerandrewJul 30, 2010
*hanged
bigviJul 29, 2010
Where is the fiscal responsibility? Between this and not funding Bush tax cuts, youd think the Tea Partiers argument on Liberals and the debt was self serving. I understand at the moment (September 2001) we had to act, but its been almost 9 years.
Id say add a tax to pay for it, but we just removed a tax from our phone bills to pay for the Spanish-American war 4 years ago (after 108 years).
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2006-05-25-phone-tax_x.htm
yodaofdarknessAug 4, 2010
FT^A: "Elimination of the tax will cost Treasury about $46 billion in refunds, lost revenue and administrative expenses in the next five years. That should be offset by higher tax revenue from a strong economy, Snow said."
I'd like a refund on the "strong economy" statement.
spypiratesJul 29, 2010
That's just a crazy amount of money per person. Just imagine a candidate in 2000 running on guaranteeing the voters that he could put $12,000 into every family's pockets compared to Bush.
wilc3685Jul 29, 2010
costofwar.com
He could of just selected "cost per person."
cooltrumbulldadJul 29, 2010
Seriously. I can't believe it took this many comments for anyone to point this out, too.
flashingcurserJul 29, 2010
Actually the number is higher than that if you consider almost half of the electorate pay no income taxes at all.
But they're evil rich people so it doesn't matter any way, right? /s
bustaballsJul 29, 2010
Obama's been giving huge tax breaks and, at the same time, escalating the war in Afghanistan. The rest of the Dems have been right on the bandwagon. Get off your high horse and quit pretending like Dems are any better.
110pctJul 29, 2010
As he said he would do.
It's not that the dems are any better, it's just that the republicans don't/can't/won't acknowledge having played any role in the current situation - complete denial and deflection 24/7...it's ALL Obama's fault and leave those 8 YEARS out of it...
Now all of a sudden they expect us to believe they've had some fiscal come to jesus moment? That has merit with some folk? Seriously?
bustaballsJul 30, 2010
I'll agree with you on that much. I just think it's funny that so many people who voted for him didn't know anything about him and now they are either excusing everything he does (even though they are the same as Bush's policies) or they are completely outraged. It's kind of like the people who voted for Bush in 2000 and thought he was really an advocate of a "humble foreign policy".
wilc3685Jul 30, 2010
@bustaballs First of all, someone named "bustaballs" telling me to get off my high horse I will take as a complement. Second, he didn't give out tax breaks. He raised taxes on those making $250,000 or more while extending some tax credits to those in the middle class range. Those who are considered in the poverty range got government assistance extensions. Republicans are notorious for running the "I will lower your taxes" campaign and they run smear campaigns against Democrats who want to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 a year.
bustaballsJul 30, 2010
You're incorrect. That's what he said during his campaign. That's not what he did. The "stimulus package" included a ton of tax breaks. You obviously haven't been keeping up. Also, Democrats are the ones with history of war. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. And no, you're wrong. Obama has been increasing far more than just military action in Afghanistan. What the hell, man? Do you worship the guy so much that you'll believe anything he says?
If the best you can do is insult my alias then you've already lost any logical argument.
bestenemyJul 29, 2010
According to The Economist, the cost of war is $25K+ per household. I say that this method is even better since the bills are mostly paid on per household basis.
jabbrwockeyJul 29, 2010
So then who is wrong? Google-based calculation or CostOfWar.com?
smackythefrog00Jul 29, 2010
Hold on. How did you get the dock on the side as a side bar?
balancedJul 29, 2010
It's a right-click option in most versions of mac OS X, I believe. I prefer it that way as well.
jackmiracleJul 29, 2010
I can't understand why you have so many icons in the dock...use Finder it will find all
noamchimpskyJul 29, 2010
That's OK, I wasn't planning on using that money towards paying off my crushing student loan debt that earned me a degree that is near worthless in our wonderful "jobless recovery".
fungowskiJul 29, 2010
That's the exact amount I used to get back on my taxes every year. Not no mo!
ratentJul 29, 2010
Hi Jeff! Good work with the math. Now how's about some Civ?
brklynmarkJul 29, 2010
I want a refund.
110pctJul 29, 2010
Or at least a way to opt out of further insanity.
meccaydnaAug 2, 2010
Sorry, no warranty for this one
eikaiJul 29, 2010
All that money could have been given to each and every one of you Americans..
jabbrwockeyJul 29, 2010
Or taken out as a loan.
yacksJul 29, 2010
mmm wow... but Obama's deficit for this year alone is still higher.....
gurugangstaJul 29, 2010
s**t like this is why I'll never understand Conservatives. I'm sure they can come up with some rationalization for all this spending, but as soon as socialized health care comes up, they're up in arms.
hivoltage815Jul 29, 2010
Well, it's not necessarily conservatives but this whole neo conservative movement. Many of the old school conservatives flat out hate that double standard. Obviously libertarians do as well. That is why the GOP base has shrunk down to maybe 30% of the country (mostly the morons).
neutron7Jul 29, 2010
Those mooslims are a threat to christianity! New crusades FTW!
/christian reich
clat98Jul 29, 2010
Duh, Americans simply need to kill brown people. tard
rudychickenJul 29, 2010
of course not each one of those 300billion+ are tax payers so the number would be higher per person...
waitasecJul 29, 2010
300 million. And yes only about 100 million tax paying "families".
larsonal777Jul 29, 2010
i'm fairly sure you didn't personally pay that much... nor did the majority of Americans. See in America its been decided that we have tax brackets which means the rich will pay a much higher percentage than anyone else... Only those paying the mean should theoretically have spent this much in the last 9 years on the wars. So only those paying the mean will have spent 369.84 on average every year. Since the top 5 percent of people contribute to over half the amount of taxes collected you would have to be in the top 5 percentile to be paying 370 bucks a year. Most people haven't paid a dime and a lot have even taken money instead of contributing.
I'm sick of people who haven't paid anywhere near 3 grand towards the wars coming up with such figures and saying see what you're making the American public pay!
No the real cost to the average person is human life. And it would dishonor those who volunteered their lives to look to these wars and say hey look what its cost us. As if the 370 dollars a year that most people don't pay is really costing them much.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rudychickenJul 29, 2010
lol oops billion. That pesky "m" key got away from me.
smacktimeJul 29, 2010
is this even an official number or just some bulls**t someone found..
foxusaJul 29, 2010
$3328.64 for 9 years.
That's only $389.85 a year.
You probably pay more than that in sales tax.
hurricanedcJul 29, 2010
I was gonna say, the cost of life alone is unacceptable but $3,328.64 over 9 years isn't much at all. s**t you can't even buy a new car with that money.
chiefbandit2200Jul 29, 2010
You can buy a new used car.
yahkinJul 29, 2010
I pay more than that per year to help one starving kid in Africa. I will happily pay it to free an entire nation from a murderous dictator. One of those girls that is now allowed to get an education may someday cure the cancer that plagues my family.
I thought liberals were supposed to be the bleeding hearts, but it seems that they could care less about people suffering in the middle east. Screw those kids being forced to work the poppy fields...my school needs a second olympic sized swimming pool!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hivoltage815Jul 29, 2010
Though your message contradicts the sensationalism that most of us were trying to grasp, you are dugg for speaking level headed truth. But as Hurricane pointed out, the human life cost is huge as is the general strategic short falls from a national defense standpoint.
harlackJul 29, 2010
So lets all keep this number in mind when Obama wantss to spent a trillion over 10 years of national health care. If we think about it...it's not that much.
110pctJul 29, 2010
So this is all OK with you?
markglJul 29, 2010
Don't forget about 47% of American's don't even pay federal taxes. So 144,293,078 people don't pay squat. 162,713,471 people pay the tab. So take the 1,021,915,322,752/162,713,471 and you get $6280.46 dollars a person.
iuandarJul 29, 2010
Can't believe I had to scroll down this far for someone to realize that not every single person of the 300 million pays taxes.
Also, is that 47% of the taxable population or just 47% of everyone. Because if it's the former then the share is even greater.
aubieguy333Jul 29, 2010
That's also assuming every taxpayer pays the same amount in taxes.
yikesidiggJul 29, 2010
This was my point as well. Also factor in federal taxes from companies and each citizen ends up paying less. oh well whatever, it's besides the point.
absurdparadoxJul 29, 2010
Its crap like this that causes my mind to blow when anyone supports taxes of ANY kind. Some people want the war, some people don't. Some people want universal health care, some don't.
Just set up some funds with your own money, and go get wtf you want, people. Don't charge ME for YOUR war or for YOUR health care! Kthxbye.
iuandarJul 29, 2010
So how should we find a way for you to stop enjoying the security that the armed forces provides you?
jabbrwockeyJul 29, 2010
How about you stop using the roads, sewer system, and buying subsidized food?
Or better yet, take a page from Locke and move somewhere with other people who have similar interests to you.
absurdparadoxJul 30, 2010
Great idea guys. Using your logic, I have decided that you need my protective services. I will now extract $1000 a month from you, at gunpoint. But, its okay! I'm providing you a service!
jabbrwockeyAug 1, 2010
I don't think you know the difference between democratic government and anarchy. But you're welcome to try, just so long as you stay alive long enough for me to extract your assets in civil court.
bono4uAug 2, 2010
i have seen somewhere that there is a grey area of about 80 million homeless people in USA + 12 million illegal immigrants, true?
cupboardwitchAug 5, 2010
47% of American's don't even pay federal taxes.
Try again; 47% of Americans don't pay federal INCOME tax.
There are plenty of other federal taxes that the majority of those 47% DO pay. (And if you want to quote percentages, think about the percentage of your income that goes to taxes on gasoline when you make $30,000/year versus the percentage of your income that goes toward gasoline taxes when you make $200,000.)
Everyone is paying for this war.
powderedtoastyAug 13, 2010
The top 1% are paying way more than their share so your personal share, if you could somehow figure that, would be a lot less.
lightsareoutJul 29, 2010
This doesn't even compare to the spending and debt caused by Obama
willdigg4foodJul 29, 2010
I don't understand. Are you trying to imply that Obama spent more or less?
lightsareoutJul 29, 2010
more, are you stupid?
boeingb17Jul 29, 2010
numbers are numbers. I'm surprised you got buried for putting Obama's numbers next to Bush's
Oh wait.. not I'm not. This is Digg.
bustaballsJul 29, 2010
It's beyond true. Bush drove us into some massive debt but Obama easily beat Bush just in the first year. I hated Clinton too but these idiots make me want him back.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boombyeJul 29, 2010
Bush ended his Presidency by giving a bailout to Bank CEOs who then spent the money on paying for their bonuses, not even half a year later another bailout was issued by Obama that went to states to pay for what it needed, like infrastructure or to keep city workers employed, etc.
They're both as bad, but one had 8 years to spend a lot more than the guy who's only been around for 2 years and still hasn't managed to spend as much as the Republicans and Bush, they spent like a drunk housewife with her cheating bf's credit card. Give it a few more years, after he wins his second term, for you to have more to bitch about probably, you guys always do except when you're in power..
Let me guess you only noticed how screwed up everything got when he came to power right? But 8 years prior to that, it wasn't so bad under Bush huh? I think you probably are just channeling your frustration towards Bush onto Obama, if not the case you're still mad that all you Bush supporters had to go into hiding and denounce your favorite President because even your own party won't support him.
caseycooldAug 1, 2010
How many lives has Obama cost with wars he has started?
kevenmJul 29, 2010
Some people are making a LOT of money from this.
zomgorlyJul 29, 2010
Wow that person went through a lot of work when they could have just clicked a drop down box and found the cost 'per person'.
drunkmuppetJul 29, 2010
I guess that seems like a lot of work to someone as lazy as you!
zomgorlyJul 29, 2010
Yea well I was keeping it simple plus they could have based the numbers off a closer number to the US population as of 2010 when they did their math
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
They would have got 3330 dollars per person vs 3328 dollars per person
metalstormJul 29, 2010
I usually don't comment on political articles as they are always filled with us vs them two party bulls**t comments, but I can't help but wonder what things would be like if that money was directed at the NSF, NASA or something similar...
seantobinJul 30, 2010
Space Camp for all!!!