What is Digg?220 Comments
- wonderboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43It could also buy 357,000,000,000 5 piece chicken nuggets from Wendy's.
- PDelahanty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43According to the link, that's the same as FREE GAS for EVERYONE IN AMERICA for ONE YEAR. Wow!
- Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -14/+53And to think that republicans like to say "those taxocrats are going to ruin us" how much fipity flop can they get?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Imagine what could have been done with that money to raise America up, instead of beating Iraqis down.
- Chadster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40Once again. This administration does not give a damn.
- jdb252, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33It is embarrassing to think that this money has gone to the deaths of thousands of human beings, Iraqi and American, and the strife of a generation. Why couldn't we have worked on creating new life with stem cell research? 357 billion dollars could cure a lot of the world's ills.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31715,430,862 4GB iPhones to be exact.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31this money could've been used for much better purposes: http://www.costofwar.com
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23But they do...think of all war-related business they've brought to their friends?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23I don't see why everyone's so upset by this. I mean, it's not like we were in deficit spending before Iraq, right? And even if this war has put us hundreds of billions in debt, at least Bush is raising taxes to cover his expenses instead of irresponsibly foisting the debt onto future generations. Plus, we had a bunch of Republicans in Congress for the last six years, all eager to trim the budget as much as possible. Thank God for our fiscally responsible conservatives!
/fox news - Homerr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15$357,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 Americans = $1190 per American
Actually higher since kids and such don't pay taxes, irs.gov says around 130,000,000 returns filed. So....
$357,000,000,000 / 130,000,000 taxpayer = $2746 per taxpayer
And this is just the financial cost so far, not to mention everything else.
GG Bush - simX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14It's called "sarchasm" -- the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn't get it.
( http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/humor/sarchasm.html ) - gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I need to throw this in there because it matters:
It's enough to buy each family in the US a single 3,000 dollar computer, which would probably last two thirds of them 10 years simply because it is maxed out. Heck, it's probably enough money to completely revamp the country's telecom system, leading to 100/100mbps internet connections per household for no more than 30USD per month. - mobbo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13From one of my favorite websites ( http://www.nationalpriorities.org/ ... click on Tradeoffs):
Taxpayers in United States will pay $378.0 billion for the cost of war in Iraq. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
107,796,841 People with Health Care or
6,435,412 Elementary School Teachers or
51,873,199 Head Start Places for Children or
161,204,628 Children with Health Care or
2,940,426 Affordable Housing Units or
38,024 New Elementary Schools or
62,398,244 Scholarships for University Students or
6,562,500 Music and Arts Teachers or
8,458,741 Public Safety Officers or
391,327,406 Homes with Renewable Electricity or
5,681,007 Port Container Inspectors - alternative724, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12hey, i think he was pointing out how fox news is stupid and/or trying to take our minds off the problems
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I'm a parent of a soldier. Pulling out now does not make the soldiers deaths for nothing. They were for nothing to begin with. That is Bush's fault not the soldiers. No matter how you spin it you can't make make anti war people look like they hate the soldiers. The people who really care about the soldiers have been fighting for their return since day one. Cindy Sheehan for example. If you're worried about the soldiers why do people like you bash mothers of dead soldiers, huh hypocrite?
You just need a lie to repeat to yourself at night so you can sleep with all that blood on your hands. - gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15"715,430,862 4GB iPhones to be exact."
In other words, at least two iPhones for each person in the US. You know, in case one's battery dies or something once it's out of warranty. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Don't think of it as "spending" money, just moving it. Into Dick Cheney's pockets of course...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Uhh... if it was spent on education and health care, we'd actually be smart and healthy.
Haha, yeah, like the government wants that. - FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I frequently wonder how much oil we could have simply bought with that money.
- MrLeap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9With that much money someone could buy Sealand.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13remember that article yesterday about 750 thousand homeless in the U.S?
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Or not having taken it in taxes in the first place.
That's more than $1000. for every man, woman and child in the country, legal, illegal, everybody.
I know what my family would have done with that extra $4K. How about you? - Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@G-Razor: That's the whole point of guerilla warfare, insurgency, or asymmetric warfare, whatever you want to call it. They can't engage us in heavy battles with tanks and airplanes so they restrict their attacks to low level urban battles where our million dollars tanks and planes are much less effective. Bullets and guns are relatively cheap to produce. Countries like Pakistan and Sudan are perfectly capable of making AKs and rounds for them. For every $1 they spend, they're hoping to make us pay $100, $1000, etc. and bleed us dry. Fighting an insurgency is a war of will. As the saying goes, "The insurgents are winning as long as they're not losing and we lose as long as we're not winning." So why the huge difference in cost? Because America can't and won't send its soldiers into battle without a huge infrastructure including air support and satellites to support him. Insurgents only need guns, bullets, and the support of the population. As long as that last item exists, they can continue to fight us until we are bled white.
- Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Yeah, I think they really do need to let the middle east settle itself and not fricken get involved. We have our own damn problems. Spend some on defense of our country and then spend a ton on education and fixing our systems.
- G-RaZoR, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Ok what I don't understand is if it costs us $357 billion, how much is it costing the Iraqis? I mean I realize they probably don't pay anyone, but seriously at the end of the day how are they still fighting? Where are they getting all the money to purchase ammo, weapons, etc.
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@gcnaddict
I am pretty sure that when you try to buy $357B worth of iPhone, Steve Jobs will give you probably 80% off, so technically you can boost your figure by 500% more. - dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11$357,000,000,000 is a LOT of money, yes. Especially when you compare it to something familiar, like your own salary. Or the annual revenues of a large corporation.
But what about when you compare it to a whole nation of salary earners?
Let's say the money was used instead to sponsor educational, health care, agricultural and other government programs instead. Taking the average American salary to be ~$40,000, the amount of money spent on the war could have afforded 8,925,000 people a single year of work.
But it's not very effective to employ people for one year in one particular industry and expect that large-scale positive change will occur. Even if it did, it would not be permanent since the workers would not be available the following year to maintain the new services.
So let's assume that the money was spent evenly throughout the economy on programs that lasted anywhere from 3 to 10 years. The average length being 6.5 years. So now our ~9 million workers have been reduced to ~1.4 million workers over the duration of the programs.
Also, the workers would not be concentrated in a single industry either. The American labor force by occupation is broken down into: managerial and professional (31.1%), technical, sales and administrative support (28.6%), services (14.1%), manufacturing, mining, transportation, and crafts (23.7%), farming, forestry, and fishing (2.5%). If the money was used evenly throughout the economy, we would have employed:
434,000 in managerial and professional occupations
400,000 in administrative support
196,000 in service
etc. etc.
Over the duration of 6.5 years on average.
Now lets compare THESE numbers to some other facts about the American economy.
The entire American labor force consists of 151 million workers.
The GDP for the US is ~13 trillion dollars. Over 6.5 years, that's 78 trillion dollars. If we compare the cost of the war to US GDP during this 6.5 year time of employment, the cost of the war amounts to 0.5% of the GDP.
Now you may look at this and draw whatever conclusions you want from this. But personally I would not expect that $357,000,000,000 would amount to any drastic change in any particular industry if the money was allocated proportionately.
I am not advocating ANYTHING this administration has done with respect to the war. I'm just trying to put the money in another perspective. - Broccoli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10That is alot of money for a war. i can think of so many better uses for that.
- Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Or... how about spending 700B on social security and healthcare and things that our future generations will need. Also, what about medicine for people in Africa. More then 3000 die there each year for sure of things that we can help prevent. Instead our young men are over there dying to save people that have a deep hatred for each other that we won't solve by elections and new democracy. Only by a bloody civil war will they solve their problems.
- FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Mental health services and low-income (for the working poor who don't qualify for medicare, etc) health care services have had their budgets cut in my area. Gee I wonder why.
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"I mean I realize they probably don't pay anyone"
besides, of course, the defense contractors, the soldiers themselves, the weapons manufacturers, the PR campaigners, etc.
In this country, we call it deficit spending. I think the Iraqis learned a thing or two from Washington. - MrDiggle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Imagine if that money had been spent on education or health care." It still would have been wasted. The best thing to do is not let the government have it to begin with.
- cpritchard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Maybe some of that money should have gone to increasing mathematics & science education funding... ; )
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5shock and awe
- Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Civilians are dying, but you can't put that all on Bush."
The blood of the Innocent is on the hands of the aggressor. In this case sadly the aggressor is us.
Yes Saddam was evil but more Innocent people have already died in this war than anyone accuses him of killing. His most egregious deeds were done in the 80s and what did we do? We send Rummy over to shake his hand after the fact.
Since the 1st gulf war he had been by and large contained and the region had a measure of stability. There were no car bombers in Iraq before we went in. - whirlwind12, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9$357,000,000,000 divided by 298,444,215(population of the united states) equals $1196.2 per person.
- Hoodwinker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Merely fueling the military industrial complex.
- cpritchard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5With that much money people could buy good government representatives.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Everyone here is blowing this out of proportion. Dick Cheney and his friends need to make a living too.
• Granted, we get around in a car and they use private jets.
• You eat value meals at fast food joints, and they eat $1,000 per plate dinners with the President.
• You work 6 days a week, and they complain of working 3 days a week.
So if George W. Bush says we need to spend this money on Iraq. Then we must spend this money on Iraq.
• No matter, how ***** up New Orleans or your life maybe.
• No matter, how many troops have died in the end.
• No matter, if once we declare victory in Iraq, it could still become another Iran in the future.
• And the list goes on.
But you must remember one thing, George W. Bush is right because he's the Decider.
Can we impeach his ass already? Let's get it started and spread the word ...
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/impeach_george_w_bush - Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree but it's even worse than that.
Almost all of that money has been borrowed so the real cast is much much higher. - kroenecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually Saddam was an evil and very secular dictator with no ties to those terrorists.
- Heembo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You actually think Bush is running the whitehouse?
- thisdude415, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ Frankie4Fingers:
In the past, the office of vice president has done very little. Truly, Gore was the first to do a lot and if you say that Cheney is doing nothing, he's actually normal. (Note: I'm not commenting on the politics of either, simply pointing out that generally VPs do little unless the President dies.) - TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And destroying Iraq helps these goals how?
- filovirus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4375 B and all I got was this lowsy low-res phone video of Saddam hanging.
George Bush should release the pristine 1080p version he watches regularly.
*Gunny* They paid for it, you eat it **/*Gunny* - kansascowboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6or we could pull out now and not have to tell the parents of the soldiers who WILL die in the future that their children's lives were worthless.
- Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@G-RaZoR
The difference is our guns cost a fortune, theirs are used old guns.
Our bombs and tanks use gas and are expense , really expensive, their pickup trucks are cheap to power and blow up because they use bombs made out of random things that are cheap.
They had huge amounts of stored munitions from us buying them when we helped them fight Iran and other wars. - starguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4could buy enough rice to feed the entire world population for 10 years
- TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"To hell with Iraq, there People, carpet bomb, NUKE, bunker bust that whole damn place, lets see if our NUKE still go bang? The oil will be fine way below the sand. "
You're advocating killing 25 million Iraqis and taking their oil? Impressive -- you'd be doing about as much killing as Hitler, Mao and Stalin all put together.
You do understand that that's quite literally insane, don't you? -
Show 51 - 100 of 222 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is