3 Billion a week
 

That is what CNN is reporting the War in Iraq will cost if Bush gets his appropriations. It currently costs over 2 Billion a week.

I don't know about you, but I cannot think of a better way to spend my tax dollars.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

We could provide health insurance for every uninsured person in the country with what we're spending in Iraq. Its sad, really.

What you would rather spend $3 billion/week on?

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
We could provide health insurance for every uninsured person in the country with what we're spending in Iraq. Its sad, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your idea better. I change my mind.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
What you would rather spend $3 billion/week on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Universal hookers and blow.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
We could provide health insurance for every uninsured person in the country with what we're spending in Iraq. Its sad, really.

What you would rather spend $3 billion/week on?

[/ QUOTE ]

We could also give back the taxpayers the money too.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
We could also give back the taxpayers the money too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we could if the money ever existed in the first place.....

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is what CNN is reporting the War in Iraq will cost if Bush gets his appropriations. It currently costs over 2 Billion a week.

I don't know about you, but I cannot think of a better way to spend my tax dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you expect?

What do you expect is gonna happen when you give one group the power to tax everyone and to brainwash everyone? Is there really ANY other outcome that can come from such a thing?

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

If i was could choose were i would put 2billion a week....well it would have to be a war with Iran

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

Or to hire every gay prositute in the world to ravage G.W.B. and his good friends until they die. or start to enjoy it. Then i would spend, next weeks 2 billion, on finding out what they hate the most, and use the next 2 billion to fund doing that to them.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

I think a simple cashback scheme is in order. We should give every Iraqi(the ones with no matching drill holes in their head) approximately 20 million. In the end it might be cheaper!

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
What do you expect is gonna happen when you give one group the power to tax everyone and to brainwash everyone? Is there really ANY other outcome that can come from such a thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Switzerland?

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

We could have a reverse rake in every pot where they sweeten it a bit just cause.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

It's ok; the Fed is printing $50 billion a week, so it's all good.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you expect is gonna happen when you give one group the power to tax everyone and to brainwash everyone? Is there really ANY other outcome that can come from such a thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Switzerland?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is the mitigating circumstance of the machine gun in every house.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We could provide health insurance for every uninsured person in the country with what we're spending in Iraq. Its sad, really.

What you would rather spend $3 billion/week on?

[/ QUOTE ]

We could also give back the taxpayers the money too.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL !! That 3 billion a week is borrowed money from selling bonds.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's ok; the Fed is printing $50 billion a week, so it's all good.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Oh billions of dollars, is there no conflict you can't solve?"
-Jon Stewart

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you would rather spend $3 billion/week on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Universal hookers and blow.

[/ QUOTE ]

i lol'd

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you expect is gonna happen when you give one group the power to tax everyone and to brainwash everyone? Is there really ANY other outcome that can come from such a thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Switzerland?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is the mitigating circumstance of the machine gun in every house.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really a major contributing factor? There's roughly one private firearm per 6 people in the U.S. (pulled from Wikipedia so grain of salt). While Switzerland is certainly higher, it's not like the U.S. population is unarmed.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you expect is gonna happen when you give one group the power to tax everyone and to brainwash everyone? Is there really ANY other outcome that can come from such a thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Switzerland?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is the mitigating circumstance of the machine gun in every house.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really a major contributing factor? There's roughly one private firearm per 6 people in the U.S. (pulled from Wikipedia so grain of salt). While Switzerland is certainly higher, it's not like the U.S. population is unarmed.

[/ QUOTE ]
firearm (i'd guess the vast majority pistols and shotguns) <<<<<<<<<<< assault rifle

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's roughly one private firearm per 6 people in the U.S

[/ QUOTE ]

First, gun collectors often own 10, 20 or more guns, %of households with a firearm is much lower. Secondly certain area have far stri8cter rules and far fewer firearms, it is not at all an even distribution.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
firearm (i'd guess the vast majority pistols and shotguns) <<<<<<<<<<< assault rifle

[/ QUOTE ]

What's an assault rifle?

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

A lot of the posts in this thread disappoint me.

If we were to free up an additional 3 billion $ a week, we should not throw it into new and bigger wasteful govt programs.

We should return it to the people it belongs to - us, the taxpayers.

Normal people are better at usefully spending money than politicians are.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We could provide health insurance for every uninsured person in the country with what we're spending in Iraq. Its sad, really.

What you would rather spend $3 billion/week on?

[/ QUOTE ]

We could also give back the taxpayers the money too.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL !! That 3 billion a week is borrowed money from selling bonds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats pretty irrelevant, DUCY?

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thats pretty irrelevant, DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not irrelvant at all. There's no way that the government would give us 3 Billion a week, much less borrow to pay for it. Time to blow it up and start over.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats pretty irrelevant, DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not irrelvant at all. There's no way that the government would give us 3 Billion a week, much less borrow to pay for it. Time to blow it up and start over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course they would never give us the money back. My point was that its irrelevant whether the "money really existed in the first place" or not. If they can borrow/manufacture 3 billion/week to pay for the war, they can do it to pay for all the things our tax dollars go to, and thus give us all our tax money back.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We could provide health insurance for every uninsured person in the country with what we're spending in Iraq. Its sad, really.

What you would rather spend $3 billion/week on?

[/ QUOTE ]

We could also give back the taxpayers the money too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 50% of the average American's earnings are taken away by various taxes. This means that average Americans spend over half of their entire working lives, working to pay the State (or being a slave to the State, depending on how you view it).

Yes, I'd say rebating $3 billion a week to Americans would be a good start.

It's not like the money was just FOUND somewhere and the main question is how shall it be most joyfully spent.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is what CNN is reporting the War in Iraq will cost if Bush gets his appropriations. It currently costs over 2 Billion a week.

I don't know about you, but I cannot think of a better way to spend my tax dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cost of 9/11? Have read estimates of $700 billion to the economy and a loss of 2 million jobs. May or may not be accurate but the cost was high, very high. What does this have to do with the U.S. involvment in Iraq? Depends on what you feel the value of a changed Middle East political environment is worth as well as if and how to go about it. Two sides to the worthiness of the situation in Iraq and how it affects the "root causes" of terrorism. If the U.S. left the Middle East to it's own devices not sure how much this would cost in the long run either. I'm fairly certain that not accounting for/ignoring the political situation in the Middle East and possible economic outcomes is short sighted at best. I fully acknowledge that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East currently and in the past may have contributed to various problems (it could be argued that 9/11 was just blowback for instance). So I guess what I'm trying to say is do you have something more to offer as to what the U.S. should do? An immediate pull out of Iraq could be an expensive mistake too.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that its irrelevant whether the "money really existed in the first place" or not. If they can borrow/manufacture 3 billion/week to pay for the war, they can do it to pay for all the things our tax dollars go to, and thus give us all our tax money back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never looked at it that way.........and I like your way of thinking.

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's roughly one private firearm per 6 people in the U.S

[/ QUOTE ]

First, gun collectors often own 10, 20 or more guns, %of households with a firearm is much lower. Secondly certain area have far stri8cter rules and far fewer firearms, it is not at all an even distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but even so I find it hard to believe that the evolution of democracy in Switzerland vs. USA can be attributed to the gun density. That suggests that Americans would behave differently if they were given more guns. I think American apathy has little to do with not feeling "sufficiently armed".

Re: 3 Billion a week
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is this really a major contributing factor? There's roughly one private firearm per 6 people in the U.S. (pulled from Wikipedia so grain of salt). While Switzerland is certainly higher, it's not like the U.S. population is unarmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Reuters those numbers are way off:

web page

I'm not sure if those numbers also include weapons possessed by the armed forces.

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you expect is gonna happen when you give one group the power to tax everyone and to brainwash everyone? Is there really ANY other outcome that can come from such a thing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Switzerland?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is the mitigating circumstance of the machine gun in every house.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really a major contributing factor? There's roughly one private firearm per 6 people in the U.S. (pulled from Wikipedia so grain of salt). While Switzerland is certainly higher, it's not like the U.S. population is unarmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

here are some fresh data:

U.S. citizens own 270 million private firearms, India has the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms and China ranked third with 40 million privately held guns.

but... there are 90 privately owned guns per 100 people in the USA with only 4 privately owned firearms per 100 people in India and just 3 per 100 people in China.

you're mentioning Switzerland, but they have 'only' 46 private guns per 100 people.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States.

source

Re: U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people
 

[ QUOTE ]
there are 90 privately owned guns per 100 people in the USA

[/ QUOTE ]

My father-in-law, a retired police officer, at one time owned 32 different hand guns. Now, at the age of 84, he has reduced that number to his favorite 14 firearms.

Re: U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people
 

Don't get bogged down in the numbers. The point is not that the density of guns is the same, only that the difference is not so large that it would be expected to be a major contributing factor to the pervasiveness of government intervention in one democracy vs. the other. I am saying that I find it hard to believe that U.S. citizens would vote differently, or rise in a revolution, or whatever, if only they had some guns.