How about this: instead of fighting a war and spending that $100 billion on military consumables, we simply promise each Iraqi male 15 years of age or older that we will give him $15,000 (roughly 6 times the average income) if they overthrow Saddam and welcome international oversight of their regime change.
toadspittle,
toadspittle
That would be throwing the money away. At least in war the beneficiaries would be American industry and individuals for the most part. And then ultimately the government would get some back with taxes. We are talking about monetary costs and not human lives IIRC.
And how much would it be when Iraq sends a nuke into Israel?
What would the price be if one of their “non-existent” nuclear bombs explodes in New York Harbor hidden in a tanker that refused to be inspection by the US Coast Guard?
How will Mr Bush pay for the cost of a nuked Saudi Arabian Oil Feild?
I will betcha anything it’ll be a hellavu lot more that 2 trillion dollars and no one here is gonna think twice about paying for it.
X, your reasoning seems to depend on the assumption that spending big bucks on war in Iraq will decrease the probability of having to spend big bucks recovering from major terrorist attacks. That assumption has by no means been shown to be valid. Perhaps trying to take out Hussein would make him more likely to use nukes on his neighbors, and/or increase the likelihood of terrorists’ getting their hands on sufficient nuclear material for a major attack on the US. That’s what CIA reports suggest, anyway.
Cost for Gulf War I:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/
The relevant passage:
Since Gulf War II doesn’t appear to have the same popularity as the first installment, its a good bet that the US will have to spend more of its own money this time around.
If they’d simply cut the huge horizontal inequity between homeowning vs. renting out of the tax code in the form of not taxing imputed rent, we’d be more than set. Iran and North Korea are probably on the horizon too.
Huh? Won’t not taxing anything decrease the amt. of money going to the feds, meaning they’d have even less cash to work with?
Blackeyes: that was my inspiration, naturally. Thanks for the link.
—Huh? Won’t not taxing anything decrease the amt. of money going to the feds, meaning they’d have even less cash to work with?—
I used confusing language (the confusing backwards language of “tax expenditure”): what I meant is cut out the inequity, not the tax. Though if you were to cut out the inequity, you could then cut everyones taxes too, since you’d’ve increased the tax base: if you weren’t determined to spend flagrantly.
The idea is that we should tax income, but we don’t want to do it in such a way that we only happen to tax those who earn it discretely: we want to treat everyone the same way. The Haig-Simmons definition of income is the most approved of: anything that increases ones power to consume over a given period. That should, if plausible, include things like in-kind transfers, imputed rent, et. Indeed, not taxing these things at the same rates as similar things it encourages inefficiency by distorting the market. If we are going to tax people, the least we can do is make sure we aren’t giving them screwy incentives.
Just to clarify… there’s no such thing as a tanker, or any other merchant vessel that “refuses” an inspection by the CG, Customs, INS or any other agency that has business there. It’s a condition of thier ability to ply our waters.
The problem is containers aboard container ships. Millions of them. Only about 2% get checked.
Bush isn’t going to pay for it. he will probably make money off of it. the american taxpayers will pay for it and mostly people below the 90% income level.
bend over suckers.
STOP THE STUPID WAR!
i remember doing the duck and cover crap in grammar school. we have lived with russian missles pointed at us most of our lives. why
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
I assume that the hamsters ate the rest of your post, 'cause I have no clue what this bit means.
Sua
I assume it goes without saying that Bush, personally, will not be paying for the war. I doubt he has several hundred billion dollars lying around.
Jeff
Barton, your link didn’t work. I fixed it:
Actually, my reasoning is that given Saddams predeliction of finding the most stupid way possible to mess up a situation, war with Iraq is inevitable. Whether that war is sooner or later, while Saddam dictates the direction of Iraq, war will be fought. The only difference is whether Saddam would have enuf time to make nuclear weapons and be able to use them either overtly (by using them himself) or covertly (by giving them to terrorists he sponsors).
The price of war with iraq will be paid. It is matter of whether or not we increase that price by delaying the war.
of course, the world gets off scott free if Saddam should magically disappear. Thats about as probable as muslims eating flying pigs.