Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

War in Iraq--The Economic Costs for Taxpayers

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-28 17:04

I think we (the United States) have enough of our own problems that we should be working on here at home, and that sticking our nose in other people's affairs abroad should not be our big concern.

There was an interesting article by an anti-war libertarian about the cost of the Iraq War on the U.S. economy.  It's pretty sick.  Just think, the amount of money spent on that war..  imagine if it was dished out as a tax cut across America's workers.

It would raise the nation's standard of living significantly.  Check this out:

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/#us

War is expensive.  $700 BILLION dollars...

If you take this sum and divide it up evenly among the 295 million americans (roughly) that live in the United States, the total per-person is:

$2372.8813559322033898305084745763

So, roughly speaking, about 2500$/person.  Imagine what could be bought for America's families with all that money.  A few computers each family! A new used car!

If each family suddenly had that much money more in their pocket(s), and they bought things, ipods, computers, cars, bikes, goods, services, it would not only raise their standard of living, it would create a HUGE nationwide surge of demand for products.

As the demand goes up, to step up production, employers build new factories, expand their labor forces, which in turn, creates jobs, and gets even MORE money flowing through the market.  The creative force of such a measure would be indescribably beneficial!

IMO, the Iraq War is a significant drain on the United States' productiveness.  It's like throwing our money into a black hole.  As a taxpayer, none of it is coming back to me.  It is not in my interest to pay for it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-28 19:13

More tax money extorted from the public and flushed down the toilet, nothing new.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-28 21:24

Maybe it is selfish for us to enjoy our liberty and not aid others in eliminating tyranny? Maybe the benefits of capitalism cannot truly be enjoyed until everyone enjoys them and it must be fought for?

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-28 21:45

>>3
What the hell? So I have some kind of duty to everyone else in the world to pull them out of their hellholes for them?

Sorry, no.  They can shoulder their own burdens.. or just move here.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-28 21:45

>>3
Selfishness is a virtue.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-28 23:51

There is answer. Nuke those hellholes. Sucks up more tax money for sure, but atleast you get to see fireworks.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 0:55

>>5
Prove it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 1:54

>>7
Read more.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 1:55

>>6
Why not just isolate them from the rest of the world? Just close off the borders, and we'll enjoy Capitalism here.  They can unfuck their own countries.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 2:03

>>9
That would grand idea, but we sadly ain't got enough people to support that.

Name: Xel 2006-06-29 4:35

>>9 While the right worried about ganja, guns, gays and the left about largely the same thing, america fucked Iraq. The unfucking would have been a lot easier if the american public looked beyond Bush's religion and attitude and realized he has some dubious loyalties and a San Fransiscan stance to the constitution.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 5:44

>>8

I know for a fact that this is the same Ayn Rand dounce from before. Only so called "objectivist" think "read more" is valid response when they are being burdened with proof.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 8:02

ye but meanwhile corporations are making money providing food/luxery/logistics services and are getting contracts for building weapons.

Lol, Industrial-Military complex.

Name: Xel 2006-06-29 8:05

>>13 The right talks a lot about the market, but the facts can't be adjusted; Halliburton got *no-bidding* sweet deals regarding both Afghanistan's (pipeline, beryllium, other gems) and Iraq's (oil basically) resources, ie. no other companies were even asked if they would like to contribute. Free market and fair competition my pale posterior.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 12:16

>>12
I think you should look at our previous discussions. 

You said the same thing to me then. 

And..secondly, you offered no proof that selfishness is not a virtue. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 12:36

>>14
That is a problem with the mixed economy, not with capitalism.  That's what happens when you get the government involved in the economy, or, more accurately, give it too much power in general. 

Name: Xel 2006-06-29 15:41

>>16 It was an attack on the hypocrisy of the curernt american right, but it is also an example of a corporation going out of line simply because the consumers don't care. I don't trust the market completely yet, nor do I accept big government.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 16:02

>>17
I trust private businesses far more than I would EVER trust the government.  (With the exception of a few companies... like AT&T, Yahoo, etc.)

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-01 20:17

This is so sick.  More money extorted from taxpayers and flushed down the international toilet.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-02 11:03

>>19
That happens in every country. US taxing is pretty tame compared to some countries.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-02 11:20

gun companies gotta make bux to pay their employees u know!!!!1

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-02 12:07

>>21
Not only gun companies. Guess how many bucks construction companies make reconstruction?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-02 13:38

>>20
Still too high, the world is a pretty terrible place compared to the US, because they have higher tax.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-02 14:36

>>23
I'd take US taxing over taxing here in Finland any day. Try to run small company in Finland and see how nice is it when you struggle under taxes. Well, we got free healthcare(it totally sucks compared to private healthcare though), free schooling(which is actually quite good) and social wellfare. Even though hueg taxes, there's still not enough to pay for that system. Mainly cause Finland's been going down, since 90s. That system was founded on 70-80s(golden age of Finland) when everyone had job and decent income. Nowadays dying totally corporate run republic can't really support it anymore. If it wasn't for Nokia and such Finland would go bankrupt. Oh well, if nothing is done in about 20 years that will happen, since old workers are going to retire.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-02 20:39

Just because it is good here already, doesn't mean it couldn't be better.  Drop welfare.  Drop social security.  Drop the war.  Reduce the federal budget.  Lower taxes.  Its ez.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 1:38

>>24
Maybe the economy was good then, because you said they weren't Socialist up until after that point?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 2:32

>>26
The whole damn world had shit into the 70s-80s, economic good times ended, so Socialism started...

Name: Xel 2006-07-03 5:39

>>25 As long as there are people saying "we should" *drop* the state's safety net cold turkey, I can't take anti-gov voices seriously. Incremental downsizing buffered by new markets, succesful privatization and consumer/community empowerment? Yes please.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 6:45

>>27
England was socialist up until the early 80s, then the good times started.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 13:40

>>29
Actually England started to go shit in 80s. Banland police state England of nowadays started to form exactly during that time.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 17:11

>>30
It was shit in the late 70s aswell, things were getting better, just not out of the shit yet.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 19:46

>>28
Vote for them anyways.  Trust me, there are plenty of liberals in office who will make sure that if things ever get downsized (they won't), it will happen very slowly if at all.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 16:26

Iraq=New Vietnam

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-07 16:05

>>33  terrorist

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List