they're spending $1B for an embassy. you could buy the freakin chrysler building for that much.
Posted by at February 24, 2005 09:13 AMthat was me
Posted by benjoya at February 24, 2005 09:14 AMis that list an "and" list or an "or" list. could we have done all of those things, or just any one of them?
Posted by matthew at February 24, 2005 09:37 AMyeah but they are after all trying to solve our energy crisis....
Posted by dennis at February 24, 2005 09:43 AMWh s ths "w"? nc y frk vr yr wllt, y gt n sy.
[Editor: ignore=off]Just one of them--each item equals roughly $300 billion in spending.
Posted by paradox at February 24, 2005 10:03 AMHas The Leftcoaster totally forgotten Guckert/Gannongate? Faux News just picked up the story.
Posted by redstater at February 24, 2005 10:12 AMBefore it's over, it'll be $400b, 4k dead, 15k disabled. Those, approximately, were the limits they set going in, so that's how they will know when to quit.
Posted by ken melvin at February 24, 2005 10:22 AMSince $300B would only cover one of these things, lets take a look...
* 200 new World Trade Center Towers
That's a lot of vacant office space. Who's going to pay rent to cover taxes and expenses?
* 3,000 new public schools
Who's going to pay for teachers, classroom supplies, all the counselors, school districts, and ongoing salaries and benefits year after year forever?
* 3,000 miles of new municipal Light Rail
Who's going to pay for the new trains and workers, and their ongoing pay and benefits?
* At least doubled US auto efficiency average by 2015 by investing in hybrid research
Can you guarantee that spending $300B on research will produce any usable results? No, you can't. Heck that might be $300B down the drain. Lets either build nuke plants instead, or if you oppose that, just spend the money on beer and party until the big final war in the middle east over oil. Build nuclear plants or carpe diem until it's all over.
* 400,000 children to attend a year of Head Start
And you'd kick them out in year 2, when the $300B ran out? Cruel.
* Given 186,000 children health care for a year
And take away their health care in year 2? Cruel. Can you imagine the line at the doctor on December 31? whoo.
* Hired 5.5 million public school teachers for a year
And fired them after the second year before they get tenure? Cruel. You'd also need a big boardroom to call those folks into and tell them on year two "You're fired!"
* Given out 15 million public university four-year scholarships
There's merit in that one.
* Built 30 million public housing units
Who's going to pay for the all the new 6-lane freeways, cops, firehouses, and other infrastructure to support those housing units?
* Fully funded global hunger relief efforts for 12 years.
There's merit in that one. I like this one.
* Fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for 30 years.
There's merit in that one.
* Insured that every child globally could get basic immunizations for 102 years
There's merit in that one.
* Built 75 new Nimitz class aircraft carriers
You going to start a draft to put troops on them? And what about money for aircraft?
* Paid the entire California textbook budget for 19 years
Nah, then the unions would bargain huge raises with money currently used for textbooks (aka surplus!), and in 19 years we'd have a crisis.
* Paid for 545,000 state-of-the-art electronic voting machines with paper trails
Who gets the maintenance contract and how much will it cost?
The best one: Spend the $300B on food for the hungry.
Posted by muckdog at February 24, 2005 10:23 AMand bush lost Iraq - all of this is for nothing. All of this and we've created a future ally of Iran. Ha Ha - what a joke!
Posted by jj at February 24, 2005 10:53 AMMuck: you're right...fuck our country....let's just piss the loot away on a country that 9 out of 10 Americans couldn't find on a map...I see you've given up on economics and are now specialising in philosophy...MuckDoc...go on ya!
Posted by Goyo at February 24, 2005 11:04 AMmuck,
What's going to happen after the first ten years of Bush's Medicad drug benefit and Social Security privatization?
Are they just going to cut off the drugs to the elderly and stop funding the transition to private accounts?
I think the point was to give a measure to how much could have been done to aid our own citizens with that amount of money. Something George Bush seems terribly unwilling to do.
Posted by at February 24, 2005 11:09 AMGreat post. Just one number doesn't look right to me. Your number for childen who could be covered for healthcare looks way understated. Dividing $300 billion by 186,000 kids comes to $1,612,903. Obviously, the actual number covered would be much, much (hundreds of times) larger.
Posted by Charlie T. at February 24, 2005 11:21 AMI should note that my $1,629,032 figure is per child (when dividing $300 billion by 186,000 kids.)
Posted by Charlie T. at February 24, 2005 11:25 AMCharlie is right and I'm sorry. I had trouble with this, for my calculator doesn't go to 30 billion and the Windoze calculator does not use commas, so I was immediately lost after the fifth zero.
I think it should have been 1,860,000 kids. I always hated Math--I set and probably still hold the record at my high school for the difference in my State verbal and mathematic scores. Sorry again.
Posted by paradox at February 24, 2005 11:29 AMWhat's going to happen after the first ten years of Bush's Medicad drug benefit and Social Security privatization?
The Medicad (sic) drug benefit costs will soar, as do all social programs.
The Social Security privatization program will generate 7-10% returns on average for those who choose a private accounts. And for those who don't privatize, they'll have less money in their account which they'll deem unfair and then try to figure out how to tax those with private accounts and swipe some of their benefits.
Posted by muckdog at February 24, 2005 01:20 PMJust think what 3 Trillion dollars would buy, lets get greedy. Kill SS, write it off our books and shread all the documents. Problem solved, remember 'Flemming v. Nestor'. Our government can do it.
Posted by peter at February 24, 2005 01:27 PMAs long as we're pointing out typos;
The Social Security privatization program will generate 7-10% returns on average for those who choose a private accounts.
Prick.
Posted by at February 24, 2005 01:56 PM The Medicad (sic) drug benefit costs will soar, as do all social programs. Posted by muckdog
Especially when the administration lied about the cost of a bill which, as written, has greater benefits to the pharmaceutical industry than to the aged.
The Social Security privatization program will generate 7-10% returns on average for those who choose a private accounts. Posted by muckdog
Dow Jones Industrial Average
Dec. 31, 1964: 874.12
Dec. 31, 1981: 875.00
The Dow Jones before Bush took office was 11,497.12
The Dow Jones closing today is 10,748.79
And for those who don't privatize, they'll have less money in their account which they'll deem unfair and then try to figure out how to tax those with private accounts and swipe some of their benefits. Posted by muckdog
Nope, as in Chile and England, those who don't privatize will have more money from Social Security than those poor fools that fell for Republican propaganda. Then there will be a great hue and cry from those chumps for government help.
Mike, you're going to have to get down the learning curve a bit. Does your 17-year period include dividends? (No, Quazimono, it doesn't). And you picked a secular bear market, which can last 10-20 years. Folks will have 40-45 years of working and contributing to private accounts. Long enough to see quite a few booms and busts. Overall, they'll get 7-10% per year.
In a 4-year period, anything can happen. Depends what the Fed is up to.
Take a look at the DOW numbers in January 2000 compared to inauguration day January 2001. So what exactly happened the last year of Clinton's term?
Posted by muckdog at February 24, 2005 06:03 PMFleming v. Nestor. Peter you're not going to suggest that the Republicans treat law abiding citizens like deported Communist party members again are you?
Boy that tatic will really win over the voters.
LOL
Sorry, but too ultraliberal basically socialized suggestions in your article.
Keeping corporations here, maintaining living wage jobs, getting all non-twenty-year citizens off all govt. benefits usage, means-testing govt. benefits, cutting and slicing all govt. employee salaries & retirements to living wage levels, would serve the country far better.