What is Digg?290 Comments
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -9/+133Annual Cost of Improving the World
• $19 billion: Eliminates starvation and malnutrition globally.
• $12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth.
• $15 billion: Provides access to water and sanitation.
• $23 billion: Reverses the spread of AIDS and Malaria
• $522 billion: U.S. Military budget this year.
• $484 billion: Cost of Iraq War thus far.
Sources: World Bank, National Priorities Project - Frnnkdlxx, on 02/18/2008, -34/+99So you're saying to ...vote Ron Paul, then?
- ThinkFr33ly, on 02/18/2008, -3/+44The money spent on Iraq, in large part, does NOT flow straight back into the US Economy. It flows straight into large multi-national companies (such as Halliburton).
A substantial portion of that money stays off shore to avoid taxes. Another substaintial portion goes into making a very few people, very, very rich... and as most people know, rich people save their money, they don't spend it. - inactive, on 02/18/2008, -9/+47The USA needs to get out of Iraq because it's a crime for us to have troops there in the first place. It's a war crime.
Any economic benefits gained by ending the war crimes are nice, but that isn't the reason to stop killing Iraqi civilians. - Terr01, on 02/18/2008, -1/+39Problem is that those "same billions" are really just spending on the national credit card.
Sure, we ought to stop ASAP, but it's not as if we'll truly have a windfall of real, positive money. - SwedishNinja, on 02/18/2008, -6/+41Fact: Most people know jack ***** about the economy.
- Eiknujrac, on 02/18/2008, -7/+41But guys... if we leave Iraq, the terrorists have won. We have to stay the course and fight them over there so we don't fight them over here. Cutting and running and surrendering in Iraq are just not viable options right now.
I wonder if I can set a record for number of Republican talking points used in one post. - inactive, on 02/18/2008, -2/+35Actually the healthiest thing to do and the best signal to the markets would be for the President to end the war, bring the troops home from the Mideast AND Europe AND the Orient, and then announce that there will be a structural budget surplus of a minimum of 100B per year in order to start paying down the Federal debt. They could start by paying back the 4Trillion that they have stolen from the Social Security Fund.
That would shock the markets into action - nicholasdog, on 02/18/2008, -6/+39If the same billions were used that are spent on the war were used for tax breaks for business and or small biz loans who know.
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -4/+36Hey, get your priorities straight and quit trying to confuse people.
Starvation and malnutrition are not important. Bringing "democrashy" to Iraqis is what's important. And if they don't want democrashy, well then we'll bomb the ingrates - absurdist, on 02/18/2008, -6/+36Except that if we pumped that money into infrastructure and encouraging new businesses and new technologies, it would be returned to us multiple times over and actually give our grandchildren a chance at not having to foot our bills. But since the average American can't think past who's going to survive this week's American Idol, I guess that idea is pretty much DOA.
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -1/+24spend more and cut taxes? why does everyone believe in the idea of a free lunch?
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -6/+29Not all problems can be wiped out just by throwing heaps of money at them. For example starvation and birth control are two problems that go hand in hand, but as long as religious morons are out there spending all their time and money telling people contraception is evil, you'll continue to have starvation.
- DreKor, on 02/18/2008, -0/+20Ferengi Rules of Acquisition:
34. Peace is good for business
35. War is good for business - Richandler, on 02/18/2008, -3/+19Well they shouldn't just believe it they should know it. Simply put our money is being placed into and essential black whole of military spending in a country that has never directly affected us. Simply put withdrawl would help with the budget significantly. It would not solve our problems but would definately help them. However, coming home from the rest of the world would actually save us more money.
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -1/+16The War in Iraq Costs
$495,487,085,793
Taxpayers in New York will pay $40.9 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2008. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
7,437,852 People with Health Care OR
76,602,859 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR
812,426 Public Safety Officers OR
571,749 Music and Arts Teachers OR
6,742,877 Scholarships for University Students OR
2,848 New Elementary Schools OR
232,586 Affordable Housing Units OR
14,093,966 Children with Health Care OR
4,652,548 Head Start Places for Children OR
492,220 Elementary School Teachers OR
614,928 Port Container Inspectors - whatthefu, on 02/18/2008, -3/+18Is this even opinion? I'd argue it as fact.
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -0/+14blasphemy! How dare you suggest something so even handed and level headed.
- chopenik, on 02/18/2008, -1/+15Money does not end up in the bank accounts of those who really need it, that being the middle and lower class. If you want to improve the economy start by having real money that is backed up by something (not the case with the dollar), stop subsidizing other countries (billion here and billion really ads up), cut the size of government, don't let private corporations dictate laws!
- hurt911gen, on 02/18/2008, -6/+19It's a POLL...what makes you think that an average joe on the street knows jack ***** about economy, or that way it works?
- xenuxenuts, on 02/18/2008, -2/+15but they can spot a waste of money when they see one.
- JimSwarthow, on 02/18/2008, -0/+12a lot of you guys are making the jump in logic that given the opportunity Congress will behave in a fiscally responsible way that will benefit the country/their constituents rather than lining their own pockets.. why on earth would anyone think that??
/not "pro war", just sayin' - kreneskyp, on 02/18/2008, -2/+13cause you don't need an economy degree to realize that spending yourself bankrupt 4 times over isn't good fiscal policy?
- Waiting2awake, on 02/18/2008, -1/+11Isn't that the arguement of "good debt" VS "bad debt"? With the Iraq war I would argue it is a "Bad debt", as it is a net expense with little chance of rewards later. The debt that would be incured by the investing in small businesses, entrepreneurship's, education, etc have an expected payoff down the line.
I am sure the arguement can be phrased three ways from Sunday either way, but I really don't see any bad side to pulling out of Iraq.
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -0/+10suzy, Americans have enjoyed a free ride for a long time and we simply don't want to think that it can't continue on forever.
There will have to be some severe pain before people accept that the government and individuals need to live within their means. None of the three remaining mainstream candidates has even whispered that they might entertain the idea of cutting military spending. None has a plan that could conceivably balance the budget.
So they are all willing to lead us into penury in order to prop up our pointless global empire. - Waiting2awake, on 02/18/2008, -0/+10Looking at the US right now - it is the mentioning of Ron Paul that you see as "the real problem"? I agree that it is hard to take every second post being turned into a paul-fest, however, he was by far and away America's best chance to turn around.
Without him, it will be much much harder. At least in my opinion. - inactive, on 02/18/2008, -5/+15That is not true. High birth rates in the developing are the result of having no confidence in the government or the economy. If you survive to the age that you can marry, and you think about your future, your aging and eventual illnesss you will realize that there will be no way to save for that future because there is no safe way for you to save. You can also be certain that the governemnt will not offer you assistance as you age and cannot work any longer. The only retirement plan that will work is to have enough children that one or two will survive and be successful enough to care for you.
The problem (like most social problems) is cuased by a breakdown of traditional religious structure together with bad government. - drmobutu, on 02/18/2008, -1/+10Why, without the war in Iraq, just think how much more Bush would have been able to lower our taxes...
- Jeffler, on 02/18/2008, -1/+10I'll give you $9.11 if you break the record.
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -1/+10If that wasn't a record, it was at least an impressive effort!
- ThinkFr33ly, on 02/18/2008, -8/+17Yes, we're not retarded. We can say Ron Paul.
The real problem is that you people can't seem to STOP saying it. - goomba323, on 02/18/2008, -0/+8Should've started the comment with "My friends"
- rexblade, on 02/18/2008, -0/+8Thats the beauty of digg most of us would say ***** war and neocons regardless of the source.
- EntangledPhysx, on 02/18/2008, -6/+14I'm voting Ron Paul (It's a throwaway vote, I suppose). That way when America hits the ***** because all the front runners (Obama, Hillary, McCain) aren't good enough (IMHO). Then when taxes spike or an incompetent McCain start screwing things up, I can say "Well I voted for Ron Paul" and none of the other schlubs.
- senator32, on 02/18/2008, -1/+8See Ron Paul's bills here http://www.statesurge.com/members/730
- goomba323, on 02/18/2008, -3/+10And McCain admittedly has little to no knowledge about the economy and just wants to go forward with Bush's current policy (make tax cuts permanent, make iraq war permanent). So how is voting Democrat a BAD idea this time around? And Clinton ran a surplus during his administration. So your argument is faulty to say the least.
- lilSears, on 02/18/2008, -0/+7hell no. He won't do anything great for this country so why waste my vote on sub par? You give it up and realize this semi-socialism goes no where and vote for RP.
- OUberLord, on 02/18/2008, -2/+9Our responsibility was to not aggressively start a baseless war in the first place, and look how well we handled that. Our country has spent incredibly large sums of money to help "stabilize" the country when in fact it was more stable and much less of a threat to anyone when Saddam was in power. We have been doing so and continue to spend money fruitlessly, while at the same time giving the new Iraqi harsh timetables for them to be self-reliant only to continue to grant them more time when they repeatedly cannot meet them.
We are doing nothing beneficial in Iraq right now, and the fact of the matter is we screwed the country up for decades to come. No amount of money or war is going to fix that; it will only drive our country further into debt. - Barbosa, on 02/18/2008, -0/+7If their investments were able to help, things should be going swimmingly right now (with years of pro business pro rich policies and tax cuts under bush), but the economy is, in fact, worse than ever.
- sportbikepilot, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6most people are idiots. getting out is a good thing that should have been done yesterday. but any effects on the economy won't be felt for years...
- BESTenemy, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7The money has been spent. The money came out of nowhere. It was printed for the war and the returns will come out of hyperinflation that will result from overspending. Those that printed the greens lost nothing. Those that will get those greens trickled down to them as they pass through the spending loops will see their dollar go less further. The money for the war had been borrowed from the FED, from China and Japan, from the purchasing power of our citizens and from elsewhere.
Getting out of Iraq or electing a wise president is going to help us to restructure, but is not going to eliminate the debt, or make life easier within the next decade.
Hoping for a bright outcome is like cutting up a maxed out credit card and getting a new one, hoping it would magically eliminate the debt. Doesn't work that way. Doesn't matter if we stay or go and whom we elect next, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Euro was on the rise since the day former OPEC allies started playing with the idea oil could be traded in something other than the USD. If we did not punish Iraq for pulling out og the alliance, others would probably not hesitate to follow practice doing business in a currency that would promise them greater returns (Euro). We've had no choice. We went to war as that was the lesser of 2 evils for the economy. We bought a few years, but not to restructure - only to spend even more, like there's no tomorrow.
Thanks to this kind of political wisdom, we're suffering the consequences of what should've been obvious back when Nixon took us off gold standard. - ZenMojo, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6This kind of nonsense is why idiots think tax cuts equal revenue. Wealth flows from the bottom up in this country, not the top down. Corporations don't invest money back into the government at the same rate that consumers and the government invest in the company.
- Dezelon, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7so basically we should stay in because general dynamics and lockheed martin are dependent on multibillion dollar contracts because of wars like this. companies exist for that sole reason, and I would be fun without such huge companies existing because their sole existence is dependent on iraqi and afghani blood. and I think I could live without the bald guy gizzing all over the huge explosions on the discovery channel too, even if the explosions and cool superweapons came from big defense contractors.
- jamestopdog, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6except ron paul. he has been advocating that changing foreign policy can be used to help save the economy. keep your views objective.
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7"Rich people invest their money"
Back into the same multi-nationals that are the problem. - inactive, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6Not to burst your proverbial bubble - but the American people are fickle. Five years ago the majority of people thought it was a good idea to go to Iraq and dethrone Saddam. Just because mob mentality believes something doesn't signify it as being true.
- jdmacor, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7Thank God someone pointed that out...
- billyjack1958, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6Any vote Not cast for Ron Paul is a vote cast For the status quo.
- urbandistrict, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5I know I do, because seriously ***** war and neocons.
- MindTrigger, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5Give me a break. Look at the planning and logistics it takes to wage a war. If we took that same energy and brain power, and put it into programs that really matter, we could transform this planet in a couple decades. Can you imagine how amazing a mobilization of 100,000 people into Africa to build infrastructure would be?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 290 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is