I am not a scholar of this sort of thing but here is my list:
Positives in the short term: job sustenance at war companies; rayethon, boeing, northrup, et. al. sympathetic(possibly) government in Iraq that will continue to supply oil at roughly current prices.
Negatives: 4 trillion dollars that could have been spent on sustainable energy research and implementation. Human lives gone both on our side and theirs. Ideological aggression from factions in the Middle East countries due to our aggressive actions. Our actions may spark neutral countries to back our enemies.
There are definitely more that I can't think of off the top of my head. Might be wrong on some of these and I would like to hear other people's opinions.
Add to that the high potential for another even more expensive war with Iran, which all the Republican candidates seem to want, except Ron Paul. Even Obama is "leaving it on the table", which is probably code word for "I want it, too, but I'm waiting to be re-elected first.".
I just love how the media seems to think that it's perfectly normal to want another war - it's the "crazy" ones who don't want it.
I do wish posters would stop adding their personal editorial comments to headlines. The linked headline does not have the words "...and will tax lower class to pay it off" and in fact, the article itself does not suggest or imply anything of the kind.
I've flagged it, not because it doesn't belong on Hacker News, but because it's been given a stupid spin by the poster.
The headline is completely wrong and misleading. There are two major mistakes:
First, the linked article actually claims that the US will endup spending a total of $4 trillion over the next 50 years, with the costs heavily weighted to the far future. This is very different than claiming that it has alreadyspent $4 trillion.
Second, the linked article does not make any claim as to how the expense will be paid for. The submitter speculates that it will be via taxes on the lower class, but the linked article does not say this and it is, frankly, unlikely. Keep in mind that the top 10% of income earners paid 70% of federal income tax in 2008; the top 50% paid 97.3% of all taxes. If you add in payroll taxes, the situation is much less progressive, but payroll taxes are slated to fund entitlements which are, themselves, highly underfunded; they are in no sense funding the cost of occupying Iraq in the year 2060. I'm sorry, but the US has 1) a high level if income inequality and 2) a highly progressive income tax structure. The combination of the two means that any expense like the Iraq war is going to be borne on the backs of the rich and the middle class. What taxes the "lower class" pay (however you wish to define it) is already spent.
6 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 22.8 ms ] threadPositives in the short term: job sustenance at war companies; rayethon, boeing, northrup, et. al. sympathetic(possibly) government in Iraq that will continue to supply oil at roughly current prices.
Negatives: 4 trillion dollars that could have been spent on sustainable energy research and implementation. Human lives gone both on our side and theirs. Ideological aggression from factions in the Middle East countries due to our aggressive actions. Our actions may spark neutral countries to back our enemies.
There are definitely more that I can't think of off the top of my head. Might be wrong on some of these and I would like to hear other people's opinions.
I just love how the media seems to think that it's perfectly normal to want another war - it's the "crazy" ones who don't want it.
I've flagged it, not because it doesn't belong on Hacker News, but because it's been given a stupid spin by the poster.
First, the linked article actually claims that the US will end up spending a total of $4 trillion over the next 50 years, with the costs heavily weighted to the far future. This is very different than claiming that it has already spent $4 trillion.
Second, the linked article does not make any claim as to how the expense will be paid for. The submitter speculates that it will be via taxes on the lower class, but the linked article does not say this and it is, frankly, unlikely. Keep in mind that the top 10% of income earners paid 70% of federal income tax in 2008; the top 50% paid 97.3% of all taxes. If you add in payroll taxes, the situation is much less progressive, but payroll taxes are slated to fund entitlements which are, themselves, highly underfunded; they are in no sense funding the cost of occupying Iraq in the year 2060. I'm sorry, but the US has 1) a high level if income inequality and 2) a highly progressive income tax structure. The combination of the two means that any expense like the Iraq war is going to be borne on the backs of the rich and the middle class. What taxes the "lower class" pay (however you wish to define it) is already spent.