The Costs of War vs. the costs of [pick your fave liberal cause].

National Priorities Project ^ | ongoing | National Priorities Project

[clyde asbury]

The War In Iraq Cost the United States

$152,071,800,292

Instead, we could have insured 91,060,958 children for one year.

See the cost in your community:

Compare to the cost of:

PRE-SCHOOL

KIDS' HEALTH

PUBLIC EDUCATION

COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIPS

PUBLIC HOUSING

WORLD HUNGER

AIDS EPIDEMIC

WORLD IMMUNIZATION

[clyde asbury]

I don't think I'm the only one who would love to see this site refuted logically, then verbally eviscerated.

[Da Bilge Troll]

The Constitution tells me that the central government should "provide" for the common defense and "promote" the general welfare. I find it impossible to believe that the founders of our nation did not understand the difference when they used those two words and merely chose them to avoid being repetitive.

In other words, it is not an either/or situation. One thing the guvment is supposed to be doing, the other not. Therefore, what any amount of money would otherwise buy is a fundamental irrelevancy.

[TWohlford]

And the cost of 9/11? The cost of Pearl Harbor? The cost of sitting by and doing nothing? The cost of trying to do nothing until we are attacked? The cost of sitting on the borders of Iraq for 50+ years, like we did in Germany, and like we've done in Korea? I think this "guns and butter" argument is an update of the same stuff I remember from VietNam. Once again, the former hippies are trying to relive their youths, as there is a war being led by a Texan in the White House. They can't grow their hair long anymore, nor can they handle a summer of love (no matter how much Viagra they use) but they can protest a war.

[Melas]

It's not a matter of logic. They're technically correct. If you redirected military spending to social programs, the cups would runneth over, and life would be paradise for a brief period.

It would be wonderful for eveyrone if we didn't have spend all that money on the military. Wonderful up until the day enemy tanks rolled off enemy ships, enemy paratroopers landed in city after city, enemy planes shut down our airspace.....You get the idea.

If I quit paying my bills, my family could live like kings, but only for a month or two. Then services would be cut off, I'd be homeless, and life would suck. That's what these guys don't grasp. All of those military expenditures are a bill we have to pay in order to remain free.

[punster]

The lieberal website claims: "Instead, we could have insured 91,060,958 children for one year."

However, insuring the children does not do them any good, if Osama bin Laden has killed them.

[YOUGOTIT]

And we could have seen hundreds of thousands of Americans dead from terrorist. Millions out of work. The tax base destroyed from the terrorist activity. Unemployment approaching 50 to 60%. No oil baby and no work and no food. The world starving because we (the United States Tax Payer) supports more food programs for the world than anyone else. Africa, Asia, parts of Europe would be starving. Hunger would force maximum military might to get food. And the cost would be (no education, no medicine, more disease, many more cemeteries)

[26lemoncharlie]

The Socialist want to weaken our COnstitutional Republic at all costs. They try to throw this Bid Guilt Trip on Everyone and make out that the United States MUST solve all of the worlds problems. Our Wealth, our blood! Why they do not go and confront the people whoare causing these problems in the Sudan, in Iran, in Iraq and throught the World and petetion them to STOP their suppressive ways. To support peace in thier countries, to feed their own countrymnen, etc, etc, etc!!

The US has neither caused these problems and in no way is it responsible to stick it's nose into other countries internal problems. We are responsible to our own countryman for the specific items named in the Constitution. If our Congress or any President has entered into an agreement with a Foreign Government including the UN, it is against the Constitution for them to do so.

We should mind our business and protect our borders and strengthen our countries defenses. There is nothing in the Constitution that direct the Federal Government to be handling out food stamps, medical insurance etc, etc, etc,

So the Socialist should go to the mirror and get on their own BIG Guilt Trip and confront the Foreign Governments that are causing the problems and leave the US out of it.

[clyde asbury]

The War in Iraq Cost the United States

$152,075,017,486

Instead, we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 6 years.


World hunger? There hasn't been a real famine in the world since before the first Green revolution in the 1960s. Only political famines, caused by despots and petty tyrants who prevent various groups from having access to international aid.

Regardless of how much aid is given to these countries, the famines will continue as long as these tyrants are in power.

Reason interview with Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution.

[Chode]

1) we have spent/pissed away more money on the poor than ALL the money spent on WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam... COMBINED!!!

2) even Jesus said "the poor will always be with us..."

[Melas]

I can hear Sam Kennison now, "We have deserts in America too, but we don't live in them!"

[carlr]

This is liberal asinine stupidity.Food costs us all a sum to survive.If I didn't have to pay 30-40 percent of my income to some govt.program I could provide insurance for some child somewhere if I were so inclined.

[ReadyNow]

How many fetuses could we have aborted for the cost of the war?

[Political Junkie Too]

They used to make the same argument about the space program, that the money was better spent on the children and the poor.

I remember a pundit refuting that argument by saying that they said the same thing to Queen Isabella, and what would the world be like if she had listened to them?

-PJ

[clyde asbury]

"ahh - ahhhhhh!"

[freeforall]

America could have saved $12 trillion if it had stayed out of the second world war. Imagine all children helped... if only we had only given peace a chance.>sarcasm

[Smartaleck]

If they're all dead, it wouldn't matter.

[Dark Glasses and Corncob Pipe]

"[pick your fave liberal cause]"

Dumbed-downed spelling and pronunciation is my "fave" liberal cause.

[clyde asbury]

You're welcome to join the discussion, corny.

[LibertarianInExile]

Logically it's easy. The whole argument is a non sequitur. A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it. I could as well say "with the money spent on the war, we could have bought 1.23 million rubber duckies and 4.2 billion bathtubs." It might well be right. But that doesn't make any difference at all to the accuracy of the conclusion, which is "Therefore we should not have gone to war."

If you seriously want to consider the linkage between the premise and the unstated conclusion, the major spurious assumption here is that if we could spend money on something besides war, we should do it. Imagine that argument about the Revolutionary War. "We coulde have fpent 1,000,000 Continentalf on tunf of ale; Therefore, we fhould not have gone to war againft the Crown!" To me, associating things that clearly have nothing to do with the conclusion that we should have gone to war.

[LibertarianInExile]

Yes, but the ones who are only severely hurt will have health coverage. /sarcasm ;)