BS: Cost of war

Subject: BS: Cost of war and US health system
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 07:00 AM

I read last week that one Cruise missile costs half a million dollars; I'm curious about how much the whole war in Iraq is costing.

The reason I'm curious is that some American friends of mine are suffering really terrible family problems due to the inadequacy of the health system in the US - an elderly woman's house has been sold, she's being put on and off hospice care by the HMO to which she belongs, her daughters are under threat of having their funds taken, etc.

Would it actually be feasible for the money to be put into health care for US citizens instead of killing non-US citizens, or am I a mad dreamer?

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 07:46 AM

If the war would actually decrease the probability of future harm to US citicens (some doubt that though I think the US postwar activities will have much more influence on that than the actual war activities) the money for this war is already spent on preventive health care.

Wolfgang (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 07:55 AM

Or the other way round, if the gamble doesn't pay off.

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 08:40 AM

Well, dollar wise, JTT, only a few folks will have a clue. Some of the money is part of an existing budget for the Satte Department and a good amount os in the Department of Defenses (War) and then there a $74.9B supplimental budget as the down payment in the war covering only the first 30 days with about $10B doled out to various countries for joining the List of Almost Willing. And then there will be a second supplimental request in about ten days and then one every month until the end of time..........

And, yes, meanwhile tyhe military industrial complex will be in high cotten and America's working class's standard of living will continue to decrease and the services for our poor and elderly will be cut, cut, cut until tens upon millions of our own citizens will die in poverty. Just about every state has all ready reduced its funding for medical and mental health programs for the elderly and needy. And when one considers the cuts that have been made in Social Services since the Clinton "Welfare Reform" legislation, we were looking at underfunded programs that are now getting slashed or eliminated.

One major program that is going is the "Nutrition in Schools" program that insures that inner city kids from poor families get at least one good healthy meal a day.

Yeah, what a waste. And what's even sadder is that it is the American working class and the poor who are the ones deing in Iraq and the way Bush and Co. have it drawn up, they'll get stuck with paying for it, too.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:05 AM

Ya know, I used to be mind-boggled when budgets were announced that soared into the high millions of dollars.

I can't even conceive, really, of something costing a billion.

And as for 80 Billion just reduce a country to rubble -- hell, I'd be willing to do that for a couple of million, as long as they weren't shooting back!! I guess there's hazard pay involved, huh?

Seriously, though, seems to me we need to get that money back, and use it for more productive purposes.

I believe without real grounds that spending ten -- or maybe 100 -- million on R&D -- if it were done by the right people -- could completely end the dependency on oil. So how come we're spending a thousand times that on roughhousing for oil?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 01:23 PM

It's a patriarchal age we live in
Even though it passed by in the sixties
The old men, mostly white,
Won't give up without a fight.

Oh, Aquarian of the sky so blue
Sign of consensus and co-operation
Equality and whirled peas
Bring the Pisces to its knees!

Aaarrrggghhhh!! Congress okay 80 billion dollars, up from the 76 or whatever it is. Unbelievable is what it is. Many of my family have no health insurance, including me, have college educations and can't find jobs. I'm telling ya, talking 'bout a re-vo-lu-tion, now...

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 01:36 PM

A week or so ago, Bush cut funding for school lunches.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: Troll
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 01:49 PM

You mean he cut Federal funding. Why should it be the Federal Govt.s job to fund things like school lunches. That should be the job of the state and county.
Knock out all these Federal entitlement progrags, cut the federal taxes that fund them, and the states will have the money to take care of it without a layer of federal beauracracy sucking up a good portion of the money in "administrative costs".
Or aren't the common people smart enough to manage their own money?
Seems I recall the last administration saying something along the lines of we (Joe Sixpak and family) shouldn't get a tax rebate out of the (nonexistant) surplus because we wouldn't spend it wisely.
Does anyone else recall that?
Or has selective memory kicked in?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:04 PM

Here you go, JTT:

Military Spending Clock

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:06 PM

Sorry about that, don't know what happened there.

Troll-It's not really about the money being spent wisely. The problem is partly that some things require a large organization to manage (education, welfare, law enforcement, etc.) and partly that taxation is redistributive. Many people object to the idea of a CEO getting more than a thousand times the average salary of his workers, and taxation allows this excess of money to be distributed to persons and programs in greater need.

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:19 PM

Selective memory? Try this:

The reason the Feds ended up running these programs in the first place is that the states made such a bollocks of it and/or COULDN'T or WOULDN'T provide them. So lets turn it back to the states?? NOT.

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: mack/misophist
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:48 PM

One thing about military spending (as in Afghanistan, etc.) that always bothered me was the fact that they never seem to deduct the every day peacetime military costs from the total when they ask for more money to make up for extraordinary expenses.

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:52 PM

Troll, Bush has been pushing all kinds of responsibilities onto the states and localities--responsibilities that are mandated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. He has made the states and cities responsible for the major portion of "homeland security" (which obviously comes under the heading of "National Defense"), but hasn't provided any funding, as he promised he would. Then, on top of that, with the local police and fire departments ("First Response") having to shoulder the vast majority of the burden, he mans his pet war by decimating these departments with military reserve call-ups. Not only has our "First Response" protection against terrorism not received any funding, it is being rendered severely short-handed.

We are going to be paying for this war for a long time. A long time. And not just with money, either.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:06 PM

Good point, Don.

Yeah, Bush talks the talk but writes checks for social spending like a man with no arms. Homeland Security is a fine example. His Eductation Reform Bill, which it isn't, is another.

And the states are in deficit ans the local governments strapped for cash.

The only folks doing well are Bush and his friends...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:34 PM

Here I am, butting in.

Can anyone define a government that doesn't care for its own people?

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:37 PM

Well lets try this example: The total percentage of the American gross national product spent on Defense (including such follow-ons as the VA health system, military pensions etc., is about 6 percent, while Entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare etc comprise approximately 45 percent).

If you take take 6 percent of a year (365 days) you get slightly under 22 days. That meant our economy is so strong that we paid for our entire military in 22 days. (And by the way, the supplemental is expected to be paid for in another ten days).

Look at another cost: As a disabled vet, I have cost the US Government well over a half of a million dollars in rehab, pension and medical costs (including my recent $80,000 heart attack). The great thing about a $500 thousand dollar missile is that it has a real cheap retirement plan.

And folks, since those 1,000 Tomahawks we expect to use in Iraq were due to be phased out and scheduled to be fired as training missiles, some of these costs will eventually be recovered as training funds...

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:38 PM

"...a government that doesn't care for its own people?"

I'd call it run of the mill.

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 08:05 PM

Another reason for the Federal govt. to help pay for programs is so that they are equitable. Not all states have the same revenues to expend in a fair way. No one should have to be hungry, without medical care, or without schooling in what is supposed to be the richest nation on Earth. It is shameful.

Subject: RE: BS: Cost of war
From: DougR
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 02:56 AM

Ever heard of local non-profit agencies designed to take care of problems such as those described by the thread poster? They are far better equipped to handle such things than is the federal government.

And lest we forget, one of the primary duties of the federal government is defense of the nation. It don't come cheap.

DougR