12 billion dollars a month

[yogi3939]

12 billion dollars a month - that is what I heard on the news the other day that the war in Iraq is going to cost us this year. And it was also reported that it cost at least half that from the beginning.

Lets put that in perspective. If that money were given to people in this country at the rate of 1 million dollars each it would make 12,000 people a month millionairs. A billion is 1000 million so 12 billion is 12,000 million.

Since the population of the United States is only 300 million people that would make 12 billion dollars come to 40 dollars a month for every man, woman, and child in the country to finance this war on terror. Somehow that scares me almost as much as Iran getting nukes does. No wonder we are having a financial crisis in this country. That kind of fiscal irresponsibility will do that.

Lets work the numbers some more. If you are the single wage earner for a family of four your share of the cost of the war will be $160 a month or $1920 a year. And that is just for the war on terror and does not include all the rest of the federal budget af about 1 trillion dollars. No bloody wonder we have inflation. The government has to be printing fiat money like crazy.

A trillion dollars is 1000 billion and a billion is 1000 million so a trillion is 1 million million dollars.

A trillion dollar budget comes to $3,333.00 for every man woman and child in the country. Again, if you are the single wage earner for a family of four your share is $13,333.00.

Now that is scary!!!!

[Bernardd]

Since the population of the United States is only 300 million people that would make 12 billion dollars come to 40 dollars a month for every man, woman, and child in the country to finance this war on terror. Somehow that scares me almost as much as Iran getting nukes does. No wonder we are having a financial crisis in this country. That kind of fiscal irresponsibility will do that.
Paying $40 per month to fight the war on terror scares you as much as Iran getting nukes?
Note -- fighting this war on terror (esp in Iraq) has placed a great burden on Iran and is likely the only prohibiting factor that keeps Iran somewhat at arm's length. Ask the Israelis what THEY think about having 150,000 AMerican soldiers next door to Iran.

So if you're so concerend about Iran having nukes, you should be glad to pay that $40 per month so our troops can take care of business if and when they need to.

Note -- It should probably be reported a little more that the U.S. has the best trained and best equiped military in the world. But what's even more important is that this great and powerful (AND HUMANITARIAN) military force has been battle-tested and hardened over the past 4 years. There is no other military in the world right now with the combat experience our military has. I hear so much about China's army and Russia's etc. but when was the last time either of these two nations actually sent their forces into real world combat?

Clearly, we learned valuable lessons in 2003-2004. Yes, our army was great, but we clearly made many mistakes...not just on the ground but with our planning. (Of course, what do you expect? Poor Rumsefeld was ordered by Bush to go to war WITH BILL CLINTON'S ARMY. But to Rumsfeld's credit, he told America, "We weren't as prepared as we would have liked to have been; but you don't go to war with the army you WANT, you go to war with the army YOU HAVE.") Bush pulled the trigger (and rightly so!), yet Rummy took the fall. Oh well. (At least you don't hear this guy complaining about it.)

As far as giving millions of Americans millions of dollars, why not just implement a wealth distribution program? Let's just have all the "rich" people give their money to the "poor" people. After all, the money we're talking about is tax money, most of which is paid by the wealthiest Americans anyway.

Of course, let's be sure to deduct some money from each American who receives a million dollars to help pay for the damage done to this country on 9-11. I'm not sure how many countless 100's of billions were lost, but I am certain that if our country had been prepared, we would have prevented the needless atrocity and saved ourselves countless 100's of billions of dollars.

What scares me (actually, what bothers me) is this constant harping on our military budget. With all the pork spending our government throws away every single day, how on earth can we focus on military spending, which is but a tiny fraction of the annual U.S. budget. Furthermore, I think the only thing our government does well is to train and equip our military. If I had it my way, the only thing our government would spend any money on would be the military and ONE federal law enforcement agency. (Perhaps they should all be combined)

The question keeps being asked, "Is it worth it?" (to fight this was on terror) I guess if we're asking, we haven't decided yet. Of course, I can answer a definitive "NO" that 1/2 the government spending is NOT worth it.

[lmenningen]

Should the government "give" 12 billion a month/144 billion a year to the "people in this country"? Here is what the government is currently "giving" out to the people of this country:
586 billion Social Security
671 billion Medicare/Medicaid
294 billion Welfare/unemployment
090 billion Education
Xxx billion Other things

Total defense is 549b or 9% of the budget

[yogi3939]

Paying $40 per month to fight the war on terror scares you as much as Iran getting nukes?
Note -- fighting this war on terror (esp in Iraq) has placed a great burden on Iran and is likely the only prohibiting factor that keeps Iran somewhat at arm's length. Ask the Israelis what THEY think about having 150,000 AMerican soldiers next door to Iran.

So if you're so concerend about Iran having nukes, you should be glad to pay that $40 per month so our troops can take care of business if and when they need to.

Note -- It should probably be reported a little more that the U.S. has the best trained and best equiped military in the world. But what's even more important is that this great and powerful (AND HUMANITARIAN) military force has been battle-tested and hardened over the past 4 years. There is no other military in the world right now with the combat experience our military has. I hear so much about China's army and Russia's etc. but when was the last time either of these two nations actually sent their forces into real world combat?

Clearly, we learned valuable lessons in 2003-2004. Yes, our army was great, but we clearly made many mistakes...not just on the ground but with our planning. (Of course, what do you expect? Poor Rumsefeld was ordered by Bush to go to war WITH BILL CLINTON'S ARMY. But to Rumsfeld's credit, he told America, "We weren't as prepared as we would have liked to have been; but you don't go to war with the army you WANT, you go to war with the army YOU HAVE.") Bush pulled the trigger (and rightly so!), yet Rummy took the fall. Oh well. (At least you don't hear this guy complaining about it.)

As far as giving millions of Americans millions of dollars, why not just implement a wealth distribution program? Let's just have all the "rich" people give their money to the "poor" people. After all, the money we're talking about is tax money, most of which is paid by the wealthiest Americans anyway.

Of course, let's be sure to deduct some money from each American who receives a million dollars to help pay for the damage done to this country on 9-11. I'm not sure how many countless 100's of billions were lost, but I am certain that if our country had been prepared, we would have prevented the needless atrocity and saved ourselves countless 100's of billions of dollars.

What scares me (actually, what bothers me) is this constant harping on our military budget. With all the pork spending our government throws away every single day, how on earth can we focus on military spending, which is but a tiny fraction of the annual U.S. budget. Furthermore, I think the only thing our government does well is to train and equip our military. If I had it my way, the only thing our government would spend any money on would be the military and ONE federal law enforcement agency. (Perhaps they should all be combined)

The question keeps being asked, "Is it worth it?" (to fight this was on terror) I guess if we're asking, we haven't decided yet. Of course, I can answer a definitive "NO" that 1/2 the government spending is NOT worth it.

It would be nice if one of you people would actually read what I write in the order I wrote it and even try to see what I am saying without wanting to stomp all over it with your own agenda.

All I am trying to say is that the government is spending one whole heck of a lot of money JUST ON THE WAR ON TERROR. Then you jump me about the $40 statement with out following through to see that IT IS $40 fOR EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD, not for every working taxpayer. The taxpayer who is responsible for four people including himself is actually paying $160 a month, but apparently you wanted to complain about something, so reading and trying to understand the whole thing was out of the question for you.

But go ahead and report me if you don't like what I just said. I am getting a little tired of the few on this board who know it all and have an unbelievably self rightous attitude.

[Bernardd]

All I am trying to say is that the government is spending one whole heck of a lot of money JUST ON THE WAR ON TERROR. Then you jump me about the $40 statement with out following through to see that IT IS $40 fOR EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD, not for every working taxpayer.
I got that point crystal clear.

But go ahead and report me if you don't like what I just said.
Who would I report you to? Furthermore, why would I do that? I don't care that you have a differing opinion from me.

You're clearly passionate about the topic, as am I. I'm sorry if my comments are offensive to you, but I'm merely stating my opinion. I haven't attacked you in any way. Yes, I may have ripped your arguments apart, but that has little to do with you. I'm not making assusations against you or suggesting you're self-righteous or a know-it-all. YOu made some comments; I responded. And now it's your turn to rip my responses apart. AND I WELCOME THAT. If you can do it, it clearly shows I'd better get my facts.

You think $12 billion per month is a lot to spend on the war on terror. Fine. I disagree. Considering the countless 100s of billions we lost on 9-11, $12 billion per month is a small price to pay if it prevents another 9-11. And so far, we've been successful in that effort.

The taxpayer who is responsible for four people including himself is actually paying $160 a month, but apparently you wanted to complain about something, so reading and trying to understand the whole thing was out of the question for you.
I read your entire post a few times. I didn't complain; I voiced a response. WHy would I complain and what good would it do?

I don't why you expected everyone to agree with your post. I'm sure there are some that do, but others might not. (In case you didn't realize, this issue has been more than explosive in Congress -- and you thought it wouldn't raise a few eyebrows in here?) If you don't like people disagreeing with you, I don't know what to tell you.

I enjoy the debates and discussions. And since I have the time these days, I like to chime in.

[harvest]

We have an insurmountable debt that can not possibly be paid back. Factor in social security and other benefits, and our debt is even higher.
It just makes it that much easier for the US to submit to the 1 world economic system. We're already seeing US companies moving to the middle east, and huge investment dollars from Dubai and other surrounding areas.

[yogi3939]

We have an insurmountable debt that can not possibly be paid back. Factor in social security and other benefits, and our debt is even higher.
It just makes it that much easier for the US to submit to the 1 world economic system. We're already seeing US companies moving to the middle east, and huge investment dollars from Dubai and other surrounding areas.

I think, in some ways, you actually got my point. A catastrophic economic collapse in the U S would do more damage to our country than an atom bomb. In the long run a depression of the magnitude predicted could result in the total destruction of our way of life as our leaders scramble to create the north american free trade zone and establish a new currency, the amero, to replace the worthless paper that our money would be turned into. Once the NAFTZ (North American Free Trade Zone) or whatever else they choose to call it is established it would only be one more small step to combine it with the E U (European Union). And then that group would be in position to take over whatever OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Cartel) has evolved into. This would set the stage for the antichrist to bring peace to the world until the day of armageddon arives and nearly all the world attacks Israel. I know some of this is an oversimplification of end times events but it was not meant to be an eschatalogical tutorial.