07-12-2004, 12:52 PM #1
Do You Know How Much $87 Billion Dollars Is????
Got this in an e-mail, I thought it was interesting. Now of course, it has some very negative connotations. My thoughts on the e-mail are fairly humble. I mean, it's obvious that we are going to have to rebuild Iraq, and occupy it for some time longer, and that costs money. The issue I have is when you read down and it talks about education expenditures etc. When you think that the war in Iraq was unnecessary (while afghanistan was very necessary) and all the funds which are being taken from education etc to give cheyney more money and halliburton more money it makes me sick. In my opinion men like cheyney, who would take money from education to line their already fat pockets, have no honor. I would never shake his hand. anyways here is the e-mail.
Vice President Dick Cheney has a special interest in this week's Congressional debate on the Bush administration's request for $87 billion to maintain the occupation of Iraq and other military adventures abroad. If approved by the House and Senate in its current form, the proposal would allocate roughly $20 billion to reconstruct Iraq, with most of the rest
of the money going to cover the costs of the occupation.
Approval of the $87 billion package would be good news for Cheney, who it is now evident, retains ties to his former employer, the energy and construction conglomerate Halliburton. Halliburton is, of course, a prime beneficiary of military and reconstruction expenditures in Iraq.
A Little Perspective
To get some perspective, here are some real-life comparisons about
what $87 billion means:
$87 Billion is more than the combined total of all State budget deficits in the United States. The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help states deal with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove down state revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities].
$87 Billion is enough to pay the 3.3 million people who have lost jobs in the last 3.5 years
$26,363.00 each! The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the beginning of this year provides zero benefits to workers who exhausted their regular, state unemployment benefits and cannot find work [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities].
$87 Billion is more than double the total amount the government spends on Homeland Security. The U.S. spends about $36 billion on homeland security. Yet, Sen. Warren Rudman (R- N.H.) wrote, America will fall approximately $98 .4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs for homeland security without a funding increase.
[Source: Council on Foreign Relations].
87 Billion is 87 times the amount the Federal Government spends on After School Programs. George W. Bush proposed a budget that reduces the $1 billion for after-school programs to $600 million cutting off about 475,000 children from the program. [Source: The Republican-dominated House Appropriations Committee]. "leave no child behind" - George W. Bush
$87 Billion is more that 10 times what the Government spends on all environmental Protection. The Bush administration requested just $7.6 billion for the entire Environmental Protection Agency. This included a 32 percent cut to water quality grants, a 6 percent reduction in enforcement staff, and a 50 percent cut to land acquisition and
conservation. [Source: Natural Resources Defense Council].
There you go. In black and white.
Last edited by symatech; 07-12-2004 at 12:58 PM. Reason: Added a Quote From W
07-12-2004, 01:02 PM #2
I have a t-shirt that syas I (heart) Halliburton. I've worn it to SIx Flags three times and only one eprson has mentioned it. It is amazing how uninformed the average citizen is. By the way I REALLY DO LOVE HALLIBURTON (mostly because the libs & Dems hate them.
07-12-2004, 01:06 PM #3
The american public is waay uniformed. I think it comes down to the fact that most americans are too **** lazy to think for themselves. in an age of fastfood, 3 gas stations on every corner, 3 homedeopts and 2 lowes in a 10 mile radius, people have gotten way too used to convenience. Its very unconvinient to have to read between the lines, its a lot more efficient if you skip a few....
07-12-2004, 03:07 PM #4AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Wherever necessary
another few numbers for the bleeding hearts who need to be informed more than just watch michael moore dramamentaries
$1.4 Trillion - Stock market loss due to 9/11
$120 Billion - Direct cost of damage from 9/11
1.1 million - the number of jobs lost in the next 4 months after 9/11
Still think $87 billion is all that expensive? all it takes is 20 guys to slip through and the cost will be FAR higher
07-13-2004, 09:57 AM #5
1)i dont think thats from Michael Moore
2)Are you calling me a bleeding heart?
3)1.4 trillion in stock loses is not real. Its never a loss until you sell. It has gone up and hopefully will continue to, but whose to say for sure.
4)Its odd that the only numbers you posted larger than the $87 billion have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Or Iraq -the country-, or Sadam. which is why the 87 billion is being spent. Those loses were all due to al quaida. You know if we needed $87 billion for a war against the only terrorist who has attacked us I'd be for it. I'd probably go fight as well. But seeing as how the money is for occupying a country that never did us any harm... well, hopefully you can see my point. Doesn't matter if your hardcore republican or ''bleeding heart' or somewhere in between, it doesnt change right from wrong. Its the politicians who have skewed the public's perception of right and wrong, and the brainless who follow blindly aching for the day they can be a presidential 'yes man'. (not suggesting anyone here is brainless)
07-13-2004, 10:06 AM #6
In part I agree. Hussein was a maniac but he did nothing to us. However use the analogy regarding his atrocities I have posted this once before because it makes sense.
What went on over there was not our doing and really not our concern.
If you had a neighbor down the street that got drunk beat his wife and raped her every week and the police (UN) would not help. Would you step up and take that guy out or continue to watch by as it happened? I think that you would take the guy out.
The war in Iraq is a way for us to get a stronghold in an area that is in the face of terrorists, a moments strike away and secure the region to keep everyone in line. Hussein was the only one that we could take out that made any sense. Are big oil and politicians raking in the bucks? You bet your ass. People today are informed as to how they are getting screwed because of mass media but it has always been that way and always will be. There are the haves and have nots , the haves are murderous and treacherous and greedy. That will never, ever change.
07-13-2004, 10:10 AM #7
Its a good analogy, but consider this. What if, while your neighbor is being raped and beaten, there is a killer in your house trying to kill your family. Are you going to take care of your neighbor first, or the killer.
Now, the killer is clearly osama bin laden. He has cells in america. he's attacked us more than 1 time. Yet we leave him to go help the Iraqis? Why? We need to take care of ourselves first. Sounds selfish but its the truth, and I dont think anybody here will disagree.
07-13-2004, 10:17 AM #8
Kill the killer in my house of course. That analogy was the one and only reason for the war in Iraq as far as I am concerned pluse the "haves" wanting more at everyone elses expense. Oil , defense contracts etc...
We needed a heavy presence there and still do to get to Bin Laden. We will get him eventually. That region needs some updating and we are the only ones capaple of doing it. Should we? I really can't say but it seems in our best interest in the long run.
The difference between today and 100 years ago is that we are not blind to secret agendas that are part of every major issue/conlict in our world. Before we were getting screwed without vaseline and begging for more and didn't have a clue.
07-13-2004, 10:20 AM #9
1victor - That is something I've been thinking about lately too. Are we really getting screwed more these days, or do we just find out about it more. I suppose the 'haves' will always screw the 'have nots.' They say if you can't beat em join em, but seriously, what person with any true self respect or honor would want to join scum like that?
You bring up some good points bro. Thanks for dropping in
07-13-2004, 10:25 AM #10
Thanks to you as well. I think we have always been getting screwed but it hurts worse when you are aware of it.
07-13-2004, 01:33 PM #11Originally Posted by symatech
07-16-2004, 01:19 AM #12
Just a few facts on US military budget.
An aircraft carrier cost over $1 million dollars a day to maintain
The US spends over $1 billion dollars a day on defense.
In 2003, military spending totaled $397 billion, this more than is spent on education, transportation, healthcare, housing, and commerce combined.
The 2003 military budget exceeds the budget of the next 25 nations combined
The US military budget accounts for 36% of total world military spending
41% of American tax dollars are spent on military
Amount of $ needed yearly to feed and provide basic healthcare to all of worlds poor: $13 billion.
The military budget increase alone for 2003 is $46 billion.
2003 budge for social services: $16 billion
2003 budget for our nuclear weapons program: $16 billion
Highway and transportation projects will be cut by $9.2 billion in 2003
Cost of Natl Missile Defense Sheild: $200 billion
24 federal programs will be eliminated in 2003, these are mainly education, healthcare, and human services programs.
Amount of $ needed to provide health care for all uninsured children in US : $19.5 billion.
I'm not sure if anyone has numbers on this, but if you look at the current trends in bush's defecit spending, he would easily outdo reagan, which is not an easy task. I do not remember how much of our tax dollars goes to paying debt interest, but i do remember it being rather large, and of course it turns out iraq doesn't have enough oil to pay for itself. The defense and oil industries are going to profit immensely.
I can't remember who said this, but to be an economic power you have to be a military power. Not anything i've just said has a coherent perspective, but I guess it puts some of the #s in perspective.
07-17-2004, 01:04 PM #13Junior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
I definatly agree that the majority of the public is misinformed, especially because of the media biased.
What steps did Saddam take to hide his weapons programs since taking office? No one knows, in fact the average joe on the street would have no idea that Saddam ever possesed weapons of mass destruction. Here is a transcript straight from the UN (not somthing like a Michael Moore "documentary") that outlines how complex Saddams weapons programs were. It also outlines some unresolved disarmorment issues. You can skip to the sections that interest you.
I have found it also disturbing that people are shocked to find that weapons programs were found in Iraq shortly after the war, you can skip down to the pictures if you want a brief overview.
So those that say Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction this is the logic. Saddams entire focus through his administration has been to aquire weapons of domination (biological and long range weapons are not for protecting yourself) and to hide the extent of these weapons programs as was outlined in the UN transcript. However, after Gulf War one there was a period where inspectors were allowed to document weapons stock piles (hence where statements about the liters of anthrax, and other toxins that Iraq possesed came from) before Saddam got the word around to not coperate with inspectors. This led to the inspectors being detained outside of buildings while large trucks were brought in and out, only two inspectors being able to inspect a building as large as the capitol building (also all outlined in resolution 1441 as evidence of Saddams no compliance)
(if you need to freshen up on that here is the transcript of 1441)
Finally all inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Continuing on with the logic that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and the war was unwarranted would mean that you believe that Saddam had a change of heart and destroyed all of his weapons stock piles while inspectors WERE NOT present. You have to believe that he destroyed all the documented stock piles even though this was the entire focus of his administration and the insane amount of detail that was put into forming and hiding these weapons program. Now the clencher, he has another change of heart and decides to start his weapons programs back up, hence the reason weapons programs were found in 2003. This is the senario you have to believe.
The truth is Saddam never complied with UN regulations and NEVER ONCE made any acknowledgments about what happened to the documented stock piles of weapons.
I here a lot about the coruption that conspiracy theorist propose that Bush and Cheney have going on, but I here nothing about the proven coruption that the countries who vowed to veto any resolution that forced Saddam to comply, even before any evidence was given. Of course I am talking about the oil for food program where billions of dollars was shelled out to anyone in the UN who could get their hand in it and keep Iraq off the agenda. Haliburton had contracts during Clintons Presidency, I guess he had a hand in getting oil too
07-17-2004, 01:23 PM #14Junior Member
Originally Posted by saboudian
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
Short overview - Fiscal policy is used to stimulate the level of economic activity as measured by GDP (gross domestic product) which responds to changes in the aggregate (total) demand for goods and services. Tax policy, which is the increasing or reducing of business and/or personal income taxes, influences both consumption and investment demand. When business cycles are in a contractionary (slowing down) period the federal government can increase government expenditures and reduce taxes to stimulate aggregate demand. When an economy is operating below full employment, federal budget deficits are appropriate in the short run (Keynesian economics). Note however that in economics a short run is not defined by a specific period of years. The major goal of fiscal policy is to get the economy to a point of operating at full employment. In 2001, 5-6.5% unemployment was considered full employment. Of course, there is always natural unemployment where people are looking for better jobs or moving out of certain industries. The current unemployment figures are estimated at 5.6%, so relative to short run historical rates, it would seem the economy is operating at full employment. There are certain implementation lags in regards to fiscal policy. It can take years for a discretionary fiscal policy to impact GDP, price levels, and unemployment. Again, due to influence of people’s actions, length of time cannot be defined. Time will be influenced greatly by the era and people’s behaviors.
Reagans degree was in economics and he was very good at it. During contractionary or a slowing down phase of the economy tax cuts and deficits are appropriate to stimulate economic growth. As stated the short term benefits are not the goal, but rather the long term goal of getting the economy back to full employment.
Cycleon posted some accurate numbers of what 9/11 cost in direct costs, in direct costs such as the airline industry nearly going bankrupt (which it would have without federal spending and deficits) the total cost of this rises even further. Add to this that the tech bubble had burst before Bush took office and corporate scandal it is amazing that we are still on our feet.
Now speaking of Reagan, under the Carter administration taxes increased every year as inflation was the highest it had been in 60 years(13% inflation). Savings decreased greatly as prices increased. Interest rates were at 21.5%, the highest interest rates had ever been. Democrats much like Carter of yesterday and Kerry of today believe that raising taxes is the answer in a slow economy so that the government gets more back in return. However this is looking at short term goals because as revenue contiues to fall you get less back in return each period. However, if you tax less you get less back in the short term, but as revenue continues to build you actually get back more in the long run even though you are taxing at a lower percent. During hard economic times you have to cut taxes to allow companies and peoples revenue to build because you are looking at long term projections.
07-17-2004, 01:27 PM #15
That's the hardest thing for people (the average joe) to understand. Regarding deficit spending. Most people can't wrap their brains around it.
07-17-2004, 01:59 PM #16Junior Member
Originally Posted by 1victor
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
You're the government and the economy is in the crapper. Inflation continues to rise as well as unemployment what do you do. You have 1,000 dollars budgeted that you have to spend on government programs. You are getting about 950 dollars back through tax revenue because less people are working and even less are making any kind of money.
What Carter did, and what Kerry would do - Raise taxes, that way you are getting a larger percentage from taxes so now you are getting back 1,500 in tax revenue. You can keep the extra for a rainy day and everything looks great. However the original problem still exists, people are still making less money, you are just taking more of it. So although you are gaining in the short term what got you to the original problem has not been fixed. Now people are really in a pinch and corporations are laying off workers to try and stay a float because they now have to pay more taxes in an economy that is making them no money. Less money is being made so each quarter the return on tax continues to decline even though your tax percentage is higher, now a couple of months have gone by and the economy is getting worse because no one has any money and your higher percentage taxes are doing nothing because there is little money to tax. Now you are back to making 950 dollars from tax revenue at a HIGHER PERCENTAGE tax and even more people are unemployed etc.
Reganomics and what Bush is following. You decrease taxes so people can save money and corporations can re-invest. Your lower tax rate is only getting you back 800 in tax revenue so you are averaging about 200 in deficit spending that you need for your budget. However, business's are expanding because they now have more money and along with these expansions come new jobs. Now people are making more money and as that revenue grows the percentage of that revenue also grows. The next quarter your return is 850 from tax revenue and it continues to grow from their. It will be a while until you break even so you will have to deficit spend until the economy gets back to working order. Once it does then you raise taxes and start taking care of the deficit, this will be possible because you have built a stable and strong economy.
I hope that is easier
07-17-2004, 02:04 PM #17
Maxima, I agree with you I guess that's something I should have included. Most people are too misinformed or plain ignorant on how the econonmy works. I'm no expert but start talking about China floating it's currency and what that would do and WHAM! It starts to get confusing. What we are doing right now is saving our economy (deficit spending).
07-17-2004, 07:08 PM #18
Excellent posts Maxima.
1victor, I would disagree, at least partially, with that statement. The Bush admin is running a deficit to finance a 'war', which is not the optimal way to improve the economic situation at home. Don't you think all of the $$ spent on Iraq could have been better spent more directly in America?
Originally Posted by 1victor
Originally Posted by CYCLEON
07-20-2004, 02:41 PM #19Junior Member
Originally Posted by chicamahomico
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
Both of these questions are very valid and I will try to take a stab at them. First, clearly Iraq has been in breach of UN resolutions since they were formed. Never has Iraq complied with any UN resolution that was meant to keep the peace and prevent Saddam from abusing his people. Gulf War 1 was effectivly restarted each time alied planes patroled the no fly zone and they were fired on by Iraq (happened just about everytime) this put an end to the cease fire agreement (which was not enforced.) The oil for food money that was meant to keep weapons out of Saddams hands and feed his people was disperssed to countries as kickbacks to sell weapons and turn away from illegal activity (yes weapons from france dated after gulf war 1 were found in 2003, which would mean they were illegally sold.) In fact Saddam built more palaces after gulf war 1 than before all while his people starved. He made no mention of what happened to his weapons of domination stock piles, based on Saddams history of invading his neighbors banking on him staying contained with WMD was a huge risk. Dipomacy had run it's course with Iraq.
Now focusing on terrorism. Terrorism is an idea not somthing tangible. You can kill several terrorists and for each one you kill two more will be recruited. Now the question is why?? It is easy, the middle east is full of oppressed people who grow up learning that the only life to look forward to is the after life. They are taught to not have tollerance for other religions or lifestyles. They grow up following these strict religious practices under oppressive dictators and see people like Americans that have girls gone wild, freedom of religion, and women working, living it up in wealth and prosperity. This makes them angry, they are the ones following what God wants them to do yet they live in poverty and the infadels live in prosperity.
The answer, kill the infadels (who you hate) to gain access to heaven and have a great after life (why do you think people are willing to blow themselves up.)
Terrorism stems from people having nothing to look forward to in life, and teachings of no tollerance for others. America gives grants to people to start business's. Why? Because these business's produce revenue which in the end will be taxed and make America money. Basically America invests in it's people. How is this different from the middle east? Dictators in the middle east do not get their money from their people, they get it from the land (oil.) They have no reason to try and better their peoples lives and this leads to their people having no hope for prosperity.
So how do we stop terrorism, promote democracy and freedom. If people were allowed to vote for others who would reinvest in the people they could have goals and aspirations for their lives rather than just thinking of this time on earth as a stepping stone and going out and killing themselves. Freedom would mean tolerance for all people where you could practice your own religion or no religion at all and not be killed for it. This would effectivly stop the very heart of terrorism.
How does this apply to Iraq. Iraq had breached more UN laws for longer than any other country. This gave legal ground to kick Saddam out of power. This was a perfect opprotunity to create a model of what was discussed above, democracy and freedom. Iraq is in the heart of the middle east. As Iraq prospered as other countries have under democracy and freedom this model would extend to other countries in the middle east and their people would adopt this way of life. Eventually the idea of terrorism would become a minority in the middle east as everyone focused on bettering their own lives and learned that even people who do not share their beliefs are good people too and worthy of friendship.
This is the long term goal of Iraq, will it work, only time will tell. Does the finance of this war justify it? Compare 87 billion used to finance this war to the amount lost in one single terrorist attack.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)