The War in Dollars

pyro9

Sun Sep 23 13:30:56 -0700 2007

manage

It's "interesting" that every suggestion of healthcare or  any other social program is met by a plea of poverty but when it comes to killing brown people the cup runneth over.

Likewise, cheap unobtrusive measures to improve security go on the back burner while expensive, unproven, and/or intrusive measures go to the front of the line.

As for my personal pet peave, "experts" in the U.S. twist themselves into knots over highly unlikely attacks (apparently involving shampoo, bottled water and breast milk) but completely ignore the millions of zombie windows machines under foreign control clogging "the tubes" and standing ready to DDOS critical U.S. telecommunications infrastructure at a moment's notice.

The zombies may or may not one day compromise national security, but it's at least as likely as a binary explosive or mass murder by nail clippers and the worst case for eliminating that threat would be a serious drop in spam output. But then again, it involves boring leg work and does nothing to cow the populace, so I guess it's out of the question.

The War in Dollars

Lucifer

Sun Sep 23 13:52:05 -0700 2007

manage

That's not all, either.  This half a million dollars a day or whatever it was could also be put directly into the hands of the disenfranchised groups in middle eastern countries rather than spent killing those same people.  What would have the larger effect on "terrorism"?

I read about a study that was done on this subject, about how people will spend millions of dollars and man-hours working on untested solutions, particularly solutions that only work less than 10% of the time (like foreign invasions) and disregard the more obvious solutions that will solve the same problems, might cost less, but are less visual in nature.  I can't imagine a regular American (besides myself) seriously suggesting taking 1 trillion dollars and just handing it out equally to everyone in the middle east, because that idea is offensive to them.  But consider that it takes away the conditions of hopelessness around which any resistance movement arises and empowers them to do something about it directly.  The results will be less visual, as long as terrorists are attacking we can measure the success of our efforts.  But as soon as they stop, we can't measure anymore.

I wish I had a link to the study, it was very disturbing.

The War in Dollars

pyro9

Sun Sep 23 15:04:49 -0700 2007

manage

Before the war even started, I considered that dropping wads of cash might be many times more effective than bombs.  So could a really big  bounty on Saddam's head if we really needed to eliminate him.

A dollars for uniforms program (surrender to custody, get nice quarters and $100,000 a year until Iraq surrenders) could probably have destroyed Saddam's army a lot easier and cheaper.

As for flight security, deadbolts and peepholes for cockpit doors would have done a lot more good than the TSA. Less than $20 per plane. Air marshalls on all flights would have been much cheaper, caused a lot less trouble for passengers, and would have been a much surer bet. For an added bonus, they could have also been given paramedic training.

I can certainly believe the study. I also recall the police here in Atlanta spending far more running the homeless out of town before the Olympics than it would have cost to send them on an expenses paid  vacation.

The War in Dollars

President4242

Mon Sep 24 12:27:29 -0700 2007

manage

Money alone doesn't work.  They would just take the money, then go back to fighting.

Money for job creation would work.  People who are working, don't have time to be terrorists.

The War in Dollars

pyro9

Wed Sep 26 14:13:28 -0700 2007

manage

True enough, but if we'd had that policy all along they probably wouldn't hate the U.S. at all.

At the least, the cash would keep them busy for a while, be a lot cheaper than the current ill-conceived hand-waving that Bush passes off as a plan and as far as I can see, would be about as (in)effective in the long term. If enough cash was infused, who knows? A few people might have taken it and gone into business (providing jobs).

As an economic stimulus, handing scads of cash out at random SHOULD be at least as effective as handing it to the already wealthy.

The War in Dollars

Timothy Brownawell

Sun Sep 23 17:44:59 -0700 2007

manage

I'm rather doubtful that just giving everyone lots of money would actually solve anything. How does everyone having lots of money make them able to fix whatever problems they're feeling "hopeless" about?

Depending on what the problem is (maybe not so good for racial/ethnic/religious "us vs them" conflicts) you could probably fix things by giving people *useful* stuff, but just throwing money at the problem probably wouldn't help. Especially since any handouts would have to stop sometime, and what happens to the situation then?

The War in Dollars

Uncle Entity

Sun Sep 23 20:21:08 -0700 2007

manage

This half a million dollars a day or whatever it was could also be put directly into the hands of the disenfranchised groups in middle eastern countries rather than spent killing those same people. What would have the larger effect on "terrorism"?

Or we could save a half our half a million dollars a minute and just leave them alone which is all they want really. Nobody likes to hear how US interventionist policies are directly related to creating the 'terrorists' so don't see lack of intervention as a valid cure for the problem.

I can't imagine a regular American (besides myself) seriously suggesting taking 1 trillion dollars and just handing it out equally to everyone in the middle east, because that idea is offensive to them.

What's stopping you, there are plenty of NGOs that can use some funding. Oh wait, you weren't talking about *your* money? You don't really have a trillion dollars do you?

But consider that it takes away the conditions of hopelessness around which any resistance movement arises and empowers them to do something about it directly.

You've never been to the Middle East I take it. If you think a few bucks would inspire the Iraqis to rise up against their oppressors after a couple generations of systematic destruction of any initiative in the people then I would have to say you are sorely mistaken. It was nothing for them to roll into a town and randomly kill people to enforce the 'rule of law' and make sure the people didn't even dare to dream of anything better than what they had. Simplistic answer to a very complex problem.

The War in Dollars

Lucifer

Sun Sep 23 20:40:42 -0700 2007

manage

Clearly someone who hasn't thought it through.  What would you do if someone came along and just gave you $50,000 USD?  Blow it on guns and bullets?  Go kill your neighbor and take his $50k?  Meanwhile your neighborhood's fresh water supply is dwindling and the roads and rails are still unrepaired, right?  That's what you'd do?

It doesn't take many people to make a difference.  Some would set up shop providing goods and services that are currently lacking in the economy.  Others would pool together to start fixing some of the infrastructure problems.  Before you'd even finish loading your machine gun, there would be an economic revival the likes of which your machine gun can't even imagine.

Would it be lasting?  I don't know.  Depends on whether or not the UK and France are going to continue fighting their little proxy economic war in Iraq, you know, the one they've been fighting since they agreed on how to partition the Ottoman Empire before *that* war was even over.  There was a time when Shias and Sunnis were allied to throw out the british from Iraq.

I'd be happy to send some money to a good cause.  Unfortunately, Uncle Sam's already taken my share and bought bullets with it.  The rest?  I may be living better than some people in some parts of the world, but I don't know where next month's rent is coming from.  Please tell me that that disqualifies me from a discussion on how federal income should be spent...

The War in Dollars

Uncle Entity

Sun Sep 23 21:36:40 -0700 2007

manage

What would you do if someone came along and just gave you $50,000 USD? Blow it on guns and bullets? Go kill your neighbor and take his $50k? Meanwhile your neighborhood's fresh water supply is dwindling and the roads and rails are still unrepaired, right? That's what you'd do?

Hookers and blow?

It doesn't take many people to make a difference. Some would set up shop providing goods and services that are currently lacking in the economy. Others would pool together to start fixing some of the infrastructure problems. Before you'd even finish loading your machine gun, there would be an economic revival the likes of which your machine gun can't even imagine.

You make the assumption they would be *free* to do those things and as they say, Freedom isn't Free. You think I spend as much time arguing about free markets and Liberty as I do and I just wrote out a response without thinking it through? You aren't free to make economic decisions unless you are free to make political choices and have a fair and equatable rule of law. Without that you are just a slave of the Servile State. No amount of money can change that.

I'd be happy to send some money to a good cause. Unfortunately, Uncle Sam's already taken my share and bought bullets with it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You ever stop to think that the trillion dollars you propose might have the exact same consequences? Hell, maybe I want my share to go to Greenpeace to save some whales or something but I wouldn't have that choice under your plan same as you don't have a choice now. Maybe it's the system that's flawed not the allocation of resources as you imply.

The War in Dollars

Lucifer

Sun Sep 23 21:40:28 -0700 2007

manage

Yes, I think you haven't thought it through.  If you go back a bit, you'll see that I was comparing it to military action.  Given the choice, I'd rather just drop a ton of money because I think there's a chance it might work.  I don't think military action is working at all.  I haven't offered any solution I'd like to actually see, nor am I going to, not to you, not with your attitude.

Have a nice day.

The War in Dollars

President4242

Mon Sep 24 12:32:47 -0700 2007

manage

Or we could save a half our half a million dollars a minute and just leave them alone which is all they want really. Nobody likes to hear how US interventionist policies are directly related to creating the 'terrorists' so don't see lack of intervention as a valid cure for the problem.

My problem is that I see a completely different message in a lack of intervention:  Anybody can get away with anything merely by running after the act to live in a country that is an "ally" that has a population willing to hide them.  Note however that attacking Iraq sends basically the same message....since al Qaida wasn't hiding there.

You've never been to the Middle East I take it. If you think a few bucks would inspire the Iraqis to rise up against their oppressors after a couple generations of systematic destruction of any initiative in the people then I would have to say you are sorely mistaken. It was nothing for them to roll into a town and randomly kill people to enforce the 'rule of law' and make sure the people didn't even dare to dream of anything better than what they had. Simplistic answer to a very complex problem.

True.  So treat them like the peons they are, build some factories, and get the people working.  Doing what doesn't matter- busy hands cannot become terrorist hands.

The War in Dollars

ehrichweiss

Sun Sep 23 18:13:12 -0700 2007

manage

Here's a novel idea. Instead of representing our budget in dollars, let's change to using percentages when it comes time to adjust spending. Cutting "useless" program X's budget of $1,000,000 sounds like a lot until you realize what percentage it actually has(it's what, like 0.00001% at best?) versus what percentage, say, the defense budget has.

People hear that we have a 5 trillion dollar deficit or that we've got a jet that costs 2 billion each and those numbers are so large that they seem to make us almost apathetic when it comes to understanding how they all fit into our overall spending and when we hear of a program, say education, that we think is "wasting 5 million of our hard earned tax dollars", a number we can fathom, we decide that program needs to be cut rather than look at what larger program could be cut that amount and hardly suffer more than 2 people might have to share a hammer once in a 20 year period.