(no subject)

[sab]

So let's do a little math. Rather, I used a calculator. Cause yankeeb isn't home, and I'm bad at math. *g*

The figure that came out today was $62.6 billion, the current cost for the war. In man hours, that's the same as sending over FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND students to HARVARD for four years, full room and board. (Or, you know, over a MILLION AND A HALF students to state schools)

This is clearly a brilliant way for us to be spending our tax dollars. Remind me why I'm opposed to tax cuts again? Oh, that's right, i'm a Democrat.

Comments

[prowler323.livejournal.com]

Here's another kicker about Harvard -- although I know it wasn't your point. Harvard, a private school, receives a higher percentage of its annual budget from the commonwealth of Massachussets than, say, UCLA, a state school, receives.

So, Mass. tax dollars are going heavily to support those private students and research facilities!

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

Something to consider...

Part of the reason the cost is so high is the cost of the munitions and equipment. Smart bombs and night goggles are not cheap. Using high cost equipment allows the US to hit things with less collateral damage than cheaper bombs and less loss of human life (on both sides) than would result in direct action (ground troops) to take the target.

This is entirely beside the 'should we be there or not' arguement - which I think we come on different sides of. My point is, we (the usa) spends so much in the war because we think it's better to use a $1 million bomb instead of 20 guys to take an objective.

And I would not spend the money sending people to Harvard, and certainly not on full room/board. Send a lot of people to tech schools, or clean up Superfunds, I could get talked into that.

- hossgal