ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/24/2018 12:49 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  5.708 Visits   10 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
10/27/2008 09:41 PM ID: 74346 Permalink   

Iraq War Cost Could Have Covered Entire U.S. interstate Highway System in 23.5-karat Gold

 

Rob Simpson, a former radio announcer was so irate at hearing an initial estimate of one trillion dollars for the cost of the Iraq war that he has calculated other things that could have been done with the money.

Among things that could be achieved with one trillion dollars are the covering of the entire US interstate highway system in gold or the purchasing of an ipod for every person on the planet or to pay for housing for 43 million Americans.

Simpson created a website listing other uses for the one trillion cost of the Iraq war his calculations however may not be accurate as latest estimates put the cost of the war not at one but three trillion dollars.

 
  Source: seattletimes.nwsource.com  
    WebReporter: Hugo Chavez Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  31 Comments
  
  Yah ....  
 
... I really wanted that f*cking Ipod too. :(
 
  by: Daev     10/27/2008 10:03 PM     
  forget the gold highways  
 
the money spent on all the wars could have saved the failing US economy today.

Hey, u reap what u sow. Bye Bye miss american pie.
 
  by: calvin0416   10/27/2008 10:10 PM     
  But  
 
could we really buy all that gold with our fake moneys?
 
  by: syoware   10/27/2008 10:20 PM     
  Yeah  
 
We could have fixed our schools, our roads, our veterans services and helped house homeless plus give medical care to those without any.

It reminds me of this song http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: TaraB     10/27/2008 10:29 PM     
  Speaking of...  
 
I read somewhere else that had we used this 700 bil. bailout to just give to every homeowner that owed on a loan it would have pretty much paid off everyone's house and paid off most of the bad debt the banks were dealing with. Hence fixing the base of the problem.
 
  by: bala_mt   10/27/2008 10:33 PM     
  @Hugo  
 
Last night I was watching a Documentary titled "The Bush Years" how many blunders, how this man and his right hand people came to power only to literally screw Americans, how Dick Cheney and Donald Duck master minded the WAR, how Wolfowitz, danced on Bush's lap etc etc, and then came the scene of the Katrina.

While Katrina was pounding Louisiana, Bush was on vacation and stayed there. ON his way back he (Bush) asked his Airforce one to fly over the disaster area and he made this comment "If it looks bad from up here imagine how it looks when down there".

When he was down there, he congratulated head of FEMA they had the photo opp with the Dumb and Imbecile, clapped their hands and Dumbya left the scene. That was it.

Imagine what and how 1 trillion could have turned Louisiana into? from this http://images.google.com/...

Instead, he went to Bail out rich!!
 
  by: isuzu     10/27/2008 10:35 PM     
  Its been said  
 
That all the problems in the world can be fixed if WE really wanted them to be so.
 
  by: Vhan     10/27/2008 11:25 PM     
  WoW  
 
This news wants to make you rip down the fences of the white house and put the current goverment on trial.
 
  by: simonwike   10/28/2008 12:20 AM     
  Pave our highways with gold?  
 
How about end starvation?

$1/day can feed 4-5 in Africa. Sure, we are only talking about potatoes here; we are talking about saving lives. To lead by example is the best way lead. Period.
 
  by: maverick7h     10/28/2008 12:42 AM     
  @bala  
 
and why should we pay off everyones house?


why should we pay off banks and lenders that followed the democrats shake downs to allow people who couldnt afford homes, or people who had no credit to get homes.

i did the smart thing, ITS CALLED RENT, i was offered a nice home loan, way way more then i make a year, but instead of doing what every other idiot did and take a loan thats more then there means i decided to rent a place that was in my means.

NO we shouldnt pay off anyones loan, or give the banks any money who took on these shiesty loans brought from the democrats
 
  by: cray0la     10/28/2008 01:09 AM     
  You heard it hear, everybody  
 
cray0la thinks you can all go to hell.
 
  by: l´anglais     10/28/2008 01:16 AM     
  Crayola has a good point.  
 
Like me, I am sure he doesn't wish any ill will on those who are suffering from this mess but the truth is this: People were offered money they knew (or should have known) they could not repay. But they said "I'll get a raise before the interest goes up honey" or "You can go back to work full time if we need it". That is just plain dangerous thinking. It is living at the financial red line. Most Americans were one month away from bankruptcy before the sub prime mess. We are a country of lazy, ignorant people who want to be coddled too and taken care of. This is NOT the attitude of success in business government or personal finance. It is the attitude of failure.

But, back to the topic of this news story... do we really need fanciful analogies to see the waiste of this war?
Can't we just simply look at the number?
Oops, sorry, I could have read what I wrote above and answered that question.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     10/28/2008 01:48 AM     
  A sign of the apocalypse  
 
I'll have to agree with Crayola here. As much as it seems heartless to say, it's not better to bail out the folks that borrowed way more than they should than it is for the banking geniuses that landed them unreasonable loans.

I know how much I can afford to pay for housing and no banker could ever talk me into taking a mortage I can't afford.
 
  by: Ryuken   10/28/2008 02:06 AM     
  But  
 
Crayola forgot to mention that, it was not the house owners who got bailed out. It was the rich and poweful.
 
  by: chakubanga1   10/28/2008 02:20 AM     
  @chakubanga1  
 
You are correct. But if it were the other way around would you still be angry about it?

I would.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     10/28/2008 02:31 AM     
  Even when you discount  
 
the human tragedy associated with the Iraq war, it is still depressing as hell. So much money lost and for what? Petrol is still expensive.
 
  by: shiftyfarker   10/28/2008 03:21 AM     
  @cray0la  
 
Quoted by cray0la
"or give the banks any money who took on these shiesty loans brought from the democrats"

The Republicans have control of the senate and the house. So your blaming the Democrats for something the Republicans supported, and Bush didn't veto, and Greenspan believed in? You talk just like a typical Republican that can't admit their own mistakes.
 
  by: slayer06   10/28/2008 05:36 AM     
  @bbeljefe  
 
"Like me, I am sure [cray0la] doesn't wish any ill will on those who are suffering from this mess..."

You apparently don't know cray0la very well. Now I not saying he doesn't OCCASIONALLY manage to say something that is ALMOST able to be considered a valid point (even if it's not his own) but if you've read many of his comments, it's easy to see the sheer contempt he holds for anyone who doesn't think exactly like him (or should I say anyone who doesn't echo the neocon talking points like he does).
 
  by: opinionated   10/28/2008 05:49 AM     
  umm...  
 
before you start throwing stones let me remind you that the democratically controlled congress voted against closer oversite of fannie mae and freddie mac, who later went on to sell these worthless loans off to banks and other investors as "derivatives". And screw all the "we coulda done this or that" with the money. Our country's true national debt total works out to approximately $440,000 for every man woman and child in the USA. How about some fiscal respondsibility and paying that off since its part of the reason the dollar is worth so little these days.
 
  by: arkan351   10/28/2008 05:54 AM     
  Do the math  
 
The cost of the middle east wars plus the cost of the bailout could have given EVERY American around $5,000. Those who desperately needed it could have put it into their mortgages. Those who didn't could have put it back into the economy. It makes a lot more sense than blowing up the other side of the world and funding corruption at home.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     10/28/2008 06:06 AM     
  @arkan  
 
Correction:

$66 trillion debt/300 million people = $220,000 per person.

Before Bush:
$20 trillion debt/270 million people = $74,000 per person
 
  by: Mr. Wright     10/28/2008 06:15 AM     
  @Mr. Wright  
 
Good point. But you made a small mathematical error.

You forgot to figure the current rate of paying off the deficit before Bush vs. having Bush getting the presidency and spending the imaginary surplus.
 
  by: slayer06   10/28/2008 06:28 AM     
  @mr wright  
 
Your 66 trillion dollar figure only takes into account the face value of the bonds issued to finance the debt. It doesn't include interest due on those bonds at maturity.
 
  by: arkan351   10/28/2008 10:16 AM     
  A few charts here ..  
 
http://zfacts.com/...

http://www.cedarcomm.com/...

I don't know/care if they are biased or whatever, but they seem to be accurate to a degree and relatively current. Due to the upcoming election, they may favour one or the other candidate at a guess.
 
  by: WWarrior     10/28/2008 11:17 AM     
  @BB  
 
I think where the whole 'personal responsibility' argument falls down, is when you consider the $700 billion dollars then went to bail out private businesses. So the poor schmuck who borrowed too much gets a sea of red (ink), and his/her house foreclosed, etc. While the businessmen who orchestrated the whole mess, instead of losing everything, get bailed out with public money and get to carry on with 'business as usual'. I find it amazing that people who shriek their heads off (not necessarily you) at the mere thought of social welfare, have no problem whatsoever with corporate welfare, it seems quite hypocritical to me.
 
  by: StarShadow     10/28/2008 12:57 PM     
  @StarShadow  
 
I don't agree with this bailout at all. But the fact that it is happpening does not in any way remove any person from the personal financial responsibility of keeping their own house in order. Your argument reinforces my point about the attitude of today's American.
Further, the conductors in your orchestraq could not have put on this show without willing players to guide.
Everyone involved is responsible.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     10/28/2008 03:12 PM     
  Well  
 
If you put in certain cities you do not see the houses foreclosed on only being for people that took out too much. In some states they are for a very small amount simply because the homeowners do not have jobs anymore. I looked up my city again this morning and they have the cheapest home listed at $4,800.00. How long did that couple dig into savings to keep paying their mortgage while looking for a job that isn't there? Yes a lot of people took too much, but they were not the only ones that were swept up in this mess.
 
  by: TaraB     10/28/2008 04:06 PM     
  i only partly agree  
 
with crayola. i think somebody should bail these ppl out. are they stupid for living outside their means? yes, but the baks should bear the burden of responsibility. the whole purpose of the credit system is to determine if you can actually substantiate a claim ( loan request) to assume debt. its the bankers responsibility to determine eligibility based on this credit system. loans were given out to ppl who surely couldnt afford the debt. blame the bankers for doing the same thing they did in the twenties, generate mass histeria in discourse through the financial system they own. these people need to be removed from generating currency out of thin air ACROSS THE WORLD. the federal reserve and its printing press' need to be burned to the ground
 
  by: Burnfactor77   10/28/2008 04:08 PM     
  @cray0la  
 
I totally agree with you. The idea is that if they were going to waste the money anyway it makes more sense to give it to the people that have the bad debt so they can pay it off then just buying the bad debt from banks and still have the bad debt exist... (Now, if you are a homeowner, you are paying for two houses, Once for your house, and your tax paying for someone else’s bad mortgage)

I don't like the idea of anyone getting bailed out for their own stupidity. Congress was dead set of spending 700 Billion and they were blind to any other ideas than giving it to the banks which of course doesn't get rid of the underlying problem...

But of course it’s not fair to the working class that the banks get the money, it's not fair to the banks or non-homeowners if homeowners get the money, its not fair....
 
  by: bala_mt   10/28/2008 04:12 PM     
  @bala  
 
That is why you give everyone money. Homeowners can pay off their debts, and non-homeowners can put the money in their bank accounts. This way debts get paid, and the banks still get money.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     10/28/2008 04:24 PM     
  @Mr. Wright  
 
Quote
"This way debts get paid, and the banks still get money."

In theory, your idea should work. But by the time home owners default on their mortgage, they also have major debt on their credit cards and fell months behind on other bills.

So in reality if you give everyone money, it wouldn't help. Home owners would still be in debt, non home owners would probably stick that money in the bank. And the banks still 'go under' because no one is spending money.

Don't get me wrong. I do like your idea, and I would also be one of those who put that money into savings.
 
  by: slayer06   10/29/2008 05:35 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com