Money well spent?

[mdpm99]

Subject: 87 Billion

graemlins/cool_shades.gif

Governmental economic budgets are getting so astronomical, the numbers are getting as meaningless as light years. What's $87 billion look like? ("A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon it starts to add up to some real money.")

A one-dollar bill is just about 6" by 2.5". So....

$6.00 - Side by side, about the size of a sheet of typing paper

$3,000 - A ream-sized box of typing paper

$72,000 - Whole carton of copier paper or 24 reams

$360,000 - A stack 2 feet x 15" x 5 feet tall, buys a pretty nice house

$9 million - Pile is 5 feet tall x 10 feet long x over 6 feet wide, about the size of a compact car. You could buy 505 of them with enough left over for gas.

$900 million - 20' x 50' x 31' or 1/2 the size of a tennis court or 56 miles stacked singley. Buys 900 million loaves of bread or 220 million six-pacs of beer in Barbados.

$87 billion - What more Bush wants this for the wars (in addition to the $79 billion he's already spent). Pile is now 100' x 250' x 125' (you could fit two Boeing 737-200 jets on this pile with room to spare) or a stack of singles 5,492 miles high. It's more than all the states' deficits combined and double what we're spending on Homeland Security.

$166 billion - What Bush proposes to spend...so far...by Oct. 2004. The pile is now 500 feet long (same as roof opening in Reliant Stadium in Houston). Single stacked, 10,500 miles. $166 billion dollars is $568 for every man, woman and child in the entire US (who'll pay it, not get it)...or $3,269 for every person in Iraq and Afghanistan (who will get it).

Money well spent?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16901

[ October 20, 2003, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[Monny JcIntosh]

This $87 billion - is it supposed to be an anti war stick to wack Bush with?

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
This $87 billion - is it supposed to be an anti war stick to wack Bush with? Greetings Jonny McIntosh:

"America's Iraq-sticker-shock may turn to anger when taxpayers discover the small group of men and companies reaping the benefits of President Bush's newly found appreciation for nation building.........."


http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16901

[ October 20, 2003, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[Monny JcIntosh]

Thanks David.

People seem to be quite angry about this $87 billion, but I'm not exactly sure why. Just wondering what the reasons are. I understand people are worried about so called spoils of war all going to Halliburton etc. - but that's independent of the figures involved. Is there a feeling that the probable cost was never made clear, and so people were misled into supporting the war? Or is it a concern that so much money is being spent on things outside of the US? Or something else?

graemlins/conf44.gif

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
Thanks David.

People seem to be quite angry about this $87 billion, but I'm not exactly sure why. Just wondering what the reasons are. I understand people are worried about so called spoils of war all going to Halliburton etc. - but that's independent of the figures involved. Is there a feeling that the probable cost was never made clear, and so people were misled into supporting the war? Or is it a concern that so much money is being spent on things outside of the US? Or something else?

graemlins/conf44.gif Basically the way Mr. Bu$h is setting this up is a blank check. Perhaps with both sides of the aisle demanding that it would be in part a loan will allow for some checks and balances.

Let's face it......Mr. Bu$h is on the side of the money and not the individual. Follow the money and as it lead you there.

Other than that I am just trying to stay tuned in as much as possible and perhaps indirectly encourge folks to get out and vote when the time comes. Imagine our planet being renamed to Planet Bu$h instead of Planet Earth. Sounds impossible? ummnnnnnnnnnn smile.gif Just a thought...

Have a great day!

graemlins/beerchug.gif

d

[ October 20, 2003, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[Monny JcIntosh]

Thanks smile.gif

The way I read it is that the biggest disaster that could befall Iraq now would be the US abandoning it. Realistically speaking, many of things people would like to see being done - quick transfer of power, overseen by the UN etc - all these things need to be underwritten by US cash. Take away the cash and you'd destroy the country. That destruction is (supposedly) what was guiding the anti war movement in the first place, hence the strange stick to beat Bush thoughts. I guess I find the anti war before and afters to be, very often, extremely inconsistent.

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
Thanks David.

People seem to be quite angry about this $87 billion, but I'm not exactly sure why. Just wondering what the reasons are. I understand people are worried about so called spoils of war all going to Halliburton etc. - but that's independent of the figures involved. Is there a feeling that the probable cost was never made clear, and so people were misled into supporting the war? Or is it a concern that so much money is being spent on things outside of the US? Or something else?

graemlins/conf44.gif Ps.

If I am not mistaken there were no competive bids allowed and Halliburton got it (the work) directly from the Bu$H-Cheeny admistration. Cheeny still receives monies each year from Hallibuton and/or will receive a windfall after he leaves office.

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
Thanks smile.gif

The way I read it is that the biggest disaster that could befall Iraq now would be the US abandoning it. Realistically speaking, many of things people would like to see being done - quick transfer of power, overseen by the UN etc - all these things need to be underwritten by US cash. Take away the cash and you'd destroy the country. That destruction is (supposedly) what was guiding the anti war movement in the first place, hence the strange stick to beat Bush thoughts. I guess I find the anti war before and afters to be, very often, extremely inconsistent. Not for abandoning it and its people in one quick step. Just abandoning the way the Bu$hies have set this up.

(I saw a program between Iraq students and American students on PBS the other day that had me in tears...quite moving and very profound)

There should be international participation without Mr. Bu$h calling all the shots including other countries financially getting involved. At the rate that American soldiers are being killed x 10 years of involvement we are l@@king at the same stats as Vietnam had. We don't need this. War is not the answer. And as far as the antiwar movement is concerned it is a fair check and balance in a democracy.

d

The true pioneers of the next war will be the soldiers who refuse to fight.

--Albert Einstein

[ October 20, 2003, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

[Monny JcIntosh]

Thanks again David. I understand, and share, most of your concerns. I still don't quite get the problem with the $87 billion in itself. It would be, for the hawks, the most disgusting failure of moral duty to wage war and then not support a reconstruction. It seems to me equally atrocious for the doves to neglect their concern for Iraqis in the first place by insisting the money shouldn't be provided. That's why I don't get the objections to it. I can completely understand the worries concerning its distribution, of course. Anyway, I don't want to labour the point any more than I already have. Thanks for sparing me some of your typing time. smile.gif

PS. Maybe people just mean they're concerned with the distribution. Ignore me.

[ October 20, 2003, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Jonny McIntosh ]

[Huey P. Freeman]

Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
Thanks again David. I understand, and share, most of your concerns. I still don't quite get the problem with the $87 billion in itself. It would be, for the hawks, the most disgusting failure of moral duty to wage war and then not support a reconstruction. It seems to me equally atrocious for the doves to neglect their concern for Iraqis in the first place by insisting the money shouldn't be provided. That's why I don't get the objections to it. I can completely understand the worries concerning its distribution, of course. Anyway, I don't want to labour the point any more than I already have. Thanks for sparing me some of your typing time. smile.gif

PS. Maybe people just mean they're concerned with the distribution. Ignore me. That 87 billion could be used for job programs and schools here in our inner cities. We have the highest unemployment rate since the Reagan years and our public school system is failing most of our youth(mostly poor minorities). As I see it Bush should take care of our home before waging war and reconstructing someone elses. Since it is my tax dollars he is using I think it should be used to benefit my country. Just my opinion.

[ October 20, 2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Eargasm ]

[djklas]

when do we get our 87 billion back in oil... I thought that was the deal,right? :rolleyes:

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by djklas:
when do we get our 87 billion back in oil... I thought that was the deal,right? :rolleyes: Greetings djklas:

I believe that has to do with the loan part (20%) only as both sides of the aisle jumped in at the last moment to try and put some of this "blank check" in check.

I do hope I have my information correct as I believe I do....but if not please advise.

d

[Monny JcIntosh]

Originally posted by Eargasm:

That 87 billion could be used for job programs and schools here in our inner cities. We have the highest unemployment rate since the Reagan years and our public school system is failing most of our youth(mostly poor minorities). As I see it Bush should take care of our home before waging war and reconstructing someone elses. Since it is my tax dollars he is using I think it should be used to benefit my country. Just my opinion. Thanks Eargasm. So you would, I guess, have been against the war in the first place as being a waste of US taxpayer's money? Or you feel you have been misled by Bush as to the cost of the war? Do you think the responsibility for the state of Iraq, which is also going through a bad patch obviously, now lies with Bush, the US and coalition nations (their tax payers), the international community, Iraqis themselves or...?

(I think, whatever the state of the US or UK, to blame Bush and Blair is an abdication of our democratic responsibility here. Vote them out - and here we find good reason to, if we disagree with the allocation of such sums of money - but it is of no comfort to say to Iraq "it's not our responsibility, we just voted for them". A state, even a democratic one, doesn't just answer to its own citizens.)

[Huey P. Freeman]

Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eargasm:

That 87 billion could be used for job programs and schools here in our inner cities. We have the highest unemployment rate since the Reagan years and our public school system is failing most of our youth(mostly poor minorities). As I see it Bush should take care of our home before waging war and reconstructing someone elses. Since it is my tax dollars he is using I think it should be used to benefit my country. Just my opinion. Thanks Eargasm. So you would, I guess, have been against the war in the first place as being a waste of US taxpayer's money? Or you feel you have been misled by Bush as to the cost of the war? Do you think the responsibility for the state of Iraq, which is also going through a bad patch obviously, now lies with Bush, the US and coalition nations (their tax payers), the international community, Iraqis themselves or...?

(I think, whatever the state of the US or UK, to blame Bush and Blair is an abdication of our democratic responsibility here. Vote them out - and here we find good reason to, if we disagree with the allocation of such sums of money - but it is of no comfort to say to Iraq "it's not our responsibility, we just voted for them". A state, even a democratic one, doesn't just answer to its own citizens.) </font>[/QUOTE]I felt the war was unnecessary. It's purposes in my opinion were:
1.Finish what was started in the first gulf war.
2.Establish a democratic muslim ally in the region(new Iraq).
3.Make the fat cats fatter(No bid contracts)
4.Oil.
Notice how quickly their(Bush Admin) smoke screen turned from weapons of mass destruction to Liberating the Iraqi people (How Noble) when the UN rejected their baseless justification for war.

As far as voting him out, we (the American People) never voted him in. He lost the election by 300,000 votes if I recall correctly. We are currently in a totalitarian(SP?) state. My vote or say means nothing. I know the result of our next election already(call me Nostradamus(SP?)). Voting Bush out is not an option. Luckily we have a 2 term limit(That if congress doesn't amend the constitution, which I believe is very likely).

[mdpm99]

footnote:

A nation is judged by how well they care for their elderly.

d

[mdpm99]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/international/worldspecial/19POST.html?ei=5062&en=68b5f9f75d404f05&ex=1067140800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

[alex zen]

man, and i gotta figure out how to pay my gas bill :(