IQ Test: Tsunami vs. Iraq

[UncleVinny]

Tsunami Aid vs. Iraq War

IQ Quiz

All nations combined have pledged $500 million dollars (one half $billion) in aid to tsunami-ravaged countries in the world. This will save hundreds of thousand of lives and help rebuild their economies, while generating much needed good will between countries.
The US has already spent 40 times that amount ($220 BILLION) on Iraq.

Question 1. Which was the smarter thing to do? The action that has the best “return on investment?”<br>a) $220 BILLION for war in Iraq
b) $350 Million for tsunami relief aid <-- CLUE: This one!

Question 2. Which is a better use of National Guard troops?
a) Saving live in Asia <-- CLUE: This one!
b) Killing people in Iraq

Question 3. Which is the best use for US military hardware? Transport ships, aircraft carriers, helicopters, construction equipment?
a) Destroying houses in Falluja
b) Clearing up damage in Indonesia <-- CLUE: This one!

[Rica]

This is the great thing about America, we have enough for both!

[UncleVinny]

Yeah, but do the math.
The $350 million the US has pledged to disaster relief is about a third of a billion dollars. The Iraq war then is almost 650 times the cost of the disaster relief. The latter goes a long way towards saving lives and building good will among nations.

Imagine what we could have done with $220 Billion spent on PRODUCTIVE projects. Why, I bet we could have built a paradise in the desert somewhere and give it to the Palestinians for a homeland, then reward those who lay down their arms and go live there. We could probably do that for 2 or 3 Billion and save all that money wasted on war. We could offer a million dollar reward for eveyone who turns in a terrorist, and I'd bet that would end the insurgency a lot faster, and be less costly than a war and occupation.

[Rica]

UncleVinny said:

Yeah, but do the math.
The $350 million the US has pledged to disaster relief is about a third of a billion dollars. The Iraq war then is almost 650 times the cost of the disaster relief. The latter goes a long way towards saving lives and building good will among nations.

Math doesn't help when you're against this war, no matter what they spend you're going to think it's too much. What we gave them hopefully will go a long way, I hope it's appreciated.

Imagine what we could have done with $220 Billion spent on PRODUCTIVE projects. Why, I bet we could have built a paradise in the desert somewhere and give it to the Palestinians for a homeland, then reward those who lay down their arms and go live there. We could probably do that for 2 or 3 Billion and save all that money wasted on war. We could offer a million dollar reward for eveyone who turns in a terrorist, and I'd bet that would end the insurgency a lot faster, and be less costly than a war and occupation.

I'd like to live in a fantasy world also.

[UncleVinny]

You ARE living in a fantasy world if you think spending $220 BILLION will bring democracy to Iraq, and that it will bring peace to the Middle East.

Let me ask something here;
The Pentagon gets war funds as a matter of priority, $220 billion, while Bush asks Americans to give to disaster releif as PRIVATE DONATIONS.

The question is; does that seem a wee bit obscene to you?

IS that what they call compassionate conservatism?

[TNRighty]

The American military (the same one you so despise) is leading the world in the effort to restore some sort of order in southeast Asia (our aircraft carriers, helicoptors, and troops are worth their weight in gold over there), and you want to turn this into an opportunity to bash Bush. Looks like the tsunami came just in time for you and your ilk to make political hay. Congratulations. You could care less about those people, except that their suffering could be somehow used to give you a platform from which to criticize Bush's foreign policies. You're a real winner. You should be proud of yourself.

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

[UncleVinny]

I don't dispise the military.
Like you, I value my money, and when it's taken away in taxes, I would like to see it used wisely.

Here's a challenge: Can you drop all the labels for a minute, ignore all my previous history and the posts that are so hated, and honestly evaluate for a second:

Are my tax dollars being spent wisely?
Does that money do any good?
Are the politicians handling that money the way I'd like to see?

Right-wing, left-wing or whatever - the answer is usually a resounding NO!

That's my view on taxes.
100 million housholds in the US.
$200 Billion on Iraq. That's $2,000 AVERAGE for every houshold in the US for the Iraq war.

$335 million for tsunami relief.
That's $3.35 (three dollars, thirty five cents!) per household.
Honestly now, don't you feel that's a weeeeeee bit out of line with decent human values?

[TNRighty]

Vinny,

If George Bush spent a gazillion dollars giving relief to tsunami victims you would still find a reason to criticize him. Ya'll have said over and over again that George Bush is insensitive, that he should reach out to Muslims. Now he commits thousands of troops, millions upon millions of dollars, and millions more in the form of planes, helicopters, and aircraft carriers. We've flown 70 humanitarian missions and dropped nearly 67 TONS of supplies, yet all you can do is criticize. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Saddam Hussein killed more people than the tsunami did.

You cannot possibly compare fighting a war to giving relief to victims of natural disasters. Its apples and oranges. That being said, we're the only country in the world with the resources to fight a major war and at the same time send 80 aircraft, two aircraft carriers, and thousands of troops to give humanitarian aid. We're also the only country in the world who would offer that aid to a group of people who would otherwise rather see us dead.

Now I'll answer the questions you asked.

1. Are your tax dollars being spent wisely? Of course not, not when 21% of the budget goes to fund a broken down welfare program like social security. I've thrown out this next fact before, but I'll do it again. The money we've spent on the war accounts for less than 3% of total government expenditures over the last two years. We've spent more on Medicare than we've spent on the war.

2. Are your tax dollars doing any good? Mostly not, with two exceptions being defense spending and tsunami victim aid, which together will account for less than 3% of government spending. Most of your tax dollars are being spent on social programs and vote-pandering policies that do no good whatsoever. About 75% of all tax money is spent domestically, and all you can do is complain about the 3% we're spending in executing the one fundamental right granted to our government by the Constitution. I'll say it again, you can fundamentally disagree with the war if you wish, BUT THE WAR IS NOT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER CAUSING ANY ECONOMIC DISTRESS. Tell me you think we're muderers, that the war is unecessary, that Saddam Hussein was a boy scout. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I will debate you on that, but when it comes to the economics of it, facts are facts. Numbers don't lie. We are spending less than 3% of our money on the war. Don't bring this up again.

Are politicians handling our money the way I'd like to see? Hell NO! First of all, they're handling (mishandling) too much of our money. Our government should operate at about 20% of its current budget. You raise holy hell when Wal Mart raises prices on toilet paper yet seem thrilled at the idea of government raising taxes. I don't understand.

[UncleVinny]

Mmm! Maybe it's just a difference in perceptions, but I don't see Social Security as a "broken down welfare system." I spent 40 years putting part of my wages into it and now I expect a little bit back. I don't think that's unreasonable.

As for the defense budget, that can be argued, Yes, we need to defend ourselves, but Iraq was an OFFENSIVE war. We attacked them. Not that wise in my humble opinion.

Meanwhile, the worst budget item is not welfare, but (not sure of the figure) the 22 cents on every dollar that goes to paying not debts, but INTEREST on the debt, and now they want to raise the debt ceiling and increase deficit spending. Doesn't make sense in my mind.

And yes, you CAN compare what you call apples and oranges. Money is money, whether or not it's spend for improving human lives or destroying them, I personally like my tax dollars to go for saving lives.

Honestly now, do you really think my opinions are that radical?

[Ian]

The US is going the Iraq war "alone" remember? So it only makes sense that we would be paying more for that endeavor than a "multi-lateral" operation such as the tsunami.

This isn't even taking into consideration the enormous divide logistically between the tsunami and the war in Iraq. No matter how terrible a natural disaster (a single event) is, it will never be able to match an ongoing war. Your comparison is fundamentally misleading and defunct.

*Ian leans back in his chair with a satisfied look upon his face, pulls a cigar from his pocket and yells “Next!”.

[TNRighty]

If, over the past 40 years you had been able to divert your social security contributions into a private 401k or comparable retirement account, you'd retire with about twice the money that you get from social security.

And yes, you should get something back from your social security contributions. You spent 40 years paying into the system and by all means should be able to draw from it. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to. My argument is that there is a better way to do it. Social security is NOT an investment. It earns no interest. It is immediately redistributed to those people drawing social security benefits. Social security is a pyramid scheme. As we speak the top of the pyramid is outgrowing the base. That spells trouble. The money you pay into social security is NOT yours. It belongs to the government. They set the rules, not you. They tell you when you can retire, and how much money you get. If you're OK with that, fine. As for me, I'm only 28, and I'm not assuming for one minute that I'll ever receive a penny from social security.

I agree 100% that the debt is a huge problem, but defense spending is just a drop in the bucket. The problem is reckless domestic spending by both Democrats and Republicans.

As for your money saving lives, not destroying them, would you not agree that removing Saddam Hussein from power will save countless lives in the long run?

[UncleVinny]

We're arguing what IS not what might have been. I deserve my SS payments. If you want to start a personal savings account and drop out of SS that's fine with me.

While you're sucking on the cigar . . .

Do the math.
We’re spending approximately $200 billion for the war in Iraq. With nearly100 million households in the US, that’s
- $2,000 average from every family for war.

The US is offering $350 million for tsunami relief.
- That’s $3.50 per household for saving lives.

One perpetuates death and destruction and generates resentment from other countries. The other saves lives and garners good will among nations. The war option is almost 600 times larger than the salvation option. Bush pushes for private donations to save lives, while the Pentagon gets whatever it asks for. So tell me, where is the compassionate part of this conservatism? Doesn’t it strike you that our values are a wee bit out of line?

[Ian]

One perpetuates death and destruction and generates resentment from other countries. The other saves lives and garners good will among nations.

This is the same naive tripe that has been peddled by liberals as an offense against defense spending for decades. The "If you spend money on our enemies they will love you" doctrine has been proven to fail time and time again and with the Muslim world we're bound to learn that lesson harder than ever.

Let us take a brief look into US Aid spent across the world:

Total US Aid given to North Korea since 1995 60% in the form of food and 40% in the form of energy assistance channeled through KEDO:

Over $1 Billion

Total USAID/OFDA Earthquake Assistance to Iran after Bam earthquake that struck December 26 2003:

$3,702,645

Total humanitarian aid authorized by US to Cuba from 1992 – 1998:

2.9 Billion

Liberals holding to their pathetic fairytale of money for peace:

Priceless

This takes into account only the aid the US gives its enemies. This doesn’t include all the foreign aid given to Europe and Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Near East and Latin America and the Caribbean, which is used for everything from battling AIDs in Africa to economic restructuring and growth in Europe and Eurasia.

In short, hold your breath (or fingers as it may be) the US has absolutely nothing to apologize for. Maybe its time to cut the apron strings and let the rest of the world leave the nest.

[TNRighty]

Uncle Vinny,

This post is not a response to your politics. As you know we disagree on most things. I want to set all that aside for a minute. This is not a conservative vs. liberal rant on my part, so please don't take it that way.

Please, anyone jump in here regardless of politics. I feel strongly about social security, and its a big issue.

Vinny, to answer your question about social security...

Of course you deserve your social security payments. You paid into the system, and you should receive your benefits. I understand completely. I am in no way suggesting that people in line for social security should be denied their benefits. I don't want to see the rug yanked out from under your feet. That is not what I'm advocating.

I actually sympathize with people who have been duped into believing that their social security retirement is guaranteed because its not. This may come as a kick in the nuts, but its the truth; YOU DO NOT OWN YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT. You have a SS number, but nowhere is there an account with your name on it. The government is NOT setting that money aside for you. The money that has been taken from your paycheck the last 40 years in the form of social security tax has long since been spent. The very second the government lays hands on it, it is immediately redistributed to those people who are currently receiving SS retirement checks. You have NO money in social security, only the hope that future wage earners will make enough to pay for your social security check the same way you have payed for those who have preceded you.

Social security is NOT an investment, and anyone who tells you social security is an investment is LYING. Investments (be it in mutual funds, individual stocks, IRA's, etc.) grow their wealth over time based on the performance of the private market. Social security operates in a completely different way. Money collected and immediately redistributed has no chance to participate in the marketplace, and thus no chance to grown itself.

As I've said before, social security is a pyramid scheme. The people at the base pay in, and the people at the top get the checks. Anyone on this board would be thrown in jail if we operated a similar scam, but for some reason we let our government get away with it. Again I'll reiterate, the top of the pyramid is outgrowing the base. People are living longer, and the Baby Boomers are closing in on retirement age. The pyramid is crumbling. You can prop it up in one of two ways. 1) Increase the social security tax (i.e. increase the size of the base), or 2) raise the retirement age and/or decrease benefits (i.e. shrink the peak).

Either way, it doesn't work. I'm sick of hearing W talk about "reforming" it. I wish he'd grow some nuts and do away with it. I want it gone forever. Sure, there will have to be some sort of gradual transition or phase-out strategy to protect those closing in on retirement age, but in the long run it will be a monumental move toward decreasing our dependence on government.

[Ian]

Well put, I agree 100%.