4 ms·

4 trillion to start to fix our country's infrastructure but we spent $6 trillion in Iraq [1][2] that resulted in ISIS. We used to help rebuild economies like in

4 trillion to start to fix our country's infrastructure but we spent $6 trillion in Iraq [1][2] that resulted in ISIS. We used to help rebuild economies like in Germany/Japan with economic plans implemented after WWII where everyone mutually benefits. Many other things could have been done to better economics, economics wins all wars. Maybe that is the long goal but it is almost two decades in and is in worse condition. Building up infrastructure leads to better economics on those improved platforms. How about upgradeable GB internet across the country? How about an electric car upgradable highway charging system? How about paying down some debt not making more of it after each war since WWII? We sure know how to invest... [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/18/business/la-fi-mo-iraq-war-cost-20130318 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/18/business/la-fi-mo-ir... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-iraq-war-cost-2-trillion-2013-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-iraq-war-cost-2-trill...

tn13 10y ago
Fiscal consolidation seems like an orphaned child in USA. The left does not believe in it and the right does not care anymore.
- perseusprime11 10y ago
  If we could pass a public stimulus to help banks become too big to fail, why can't we get together and pass something similar to help our Infrastructure too strong to fail?
  - tn13 10y ago
    I think as a rule of thumb government money will always flow in the direction where self interests of politicians and government servants are better served. Building a road is a time tested government program. It is mature, there is lots of competition and opportunity for publicity or kickbacks is limited. The profit margins of the road construction companies are pretty thin too. I dont think politicians benefit by building a road or bridge. Today they benefit by having outrageous programs like high speed train that will not see light of the day for decades to come (or probably never) or transmitting American programs into Cuba (which the cubans cant hear because the signal is blocked). The only way is to put a hard constitutional limit on the government spending as a % of GDP. The government is then forced to take measure to increase GDP if they want to subsidize education of Chinese prostitutes or spend $$$ on study effects of LSD on monkeys.
akiselev 10y ago
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I don't think the situation is that simple. The military industrial complex is the largest job program in US, maybe even human, history. While there was certainly a huge level of corruption and profiteering during the war, I don't think it's much different than inefficiencies in any other industry except for the magnitude. Even then I think healthcare in the US wastes just as much as the defense industry; maybe even more since our healthcare expenditure is at over 15% of GDP compared to the 20% of government income going to defense. Healthcare also has a huge impact on lives just like any war because every human being in the country comes in contact with our health system, often involving high stakes. I think the way forward for the US is to completely retool the military industrial complex to a civilian/academic industry that utilizes its resources for the public good instead of geopolitical posturing. Between the factories, scientists, engineers, and trained, disciplined soldiers I think that the complex could single handedly turn around our infrastructure decline. US defense spending in 2000 was almost 400 billion so a decade later we'd still have spent the majority of the money we did, war or no. If we just cut the defense industry and reinvested in infrastructure instead of retooling our existing system, there's no telling whether the net result would be any better than what we have now just due to the shock to a $400-600 billion dollar jobs program and any social instability or brinkmanship that results (aka a demagogue like trump winning an election in a backlash).
pcardh0 10y ago
The article you linked, doesn't say we spent $6 trillion in Iraq, it mentions a report saying the costs could be 6 trillion over the next 40 years. The infrastructure report wants 4 trillion by 2020. Very different time periods.
- drawkbox 10y ago
  2 trillion+ already spent and gone and much of the remaining 4 trillion in interest and healthcare for veterans. That money would be more available today and we still have to pay it. Harder to get money now if large amounts are already spent now and in the future, it does impact 2020 budgets. Are you saying debt now doesn't impact spending? It does indeed. The fact the interest will carry for 40 years is telling in how we are budgeting for the wrong things. Money owed is money owed even if interest only becomes 2 trillion we are still at 4 trillion. It will probably end up as more than 6 trillion as these figures are usually off on the low side. That is money that is on the books that could have been used for infrastructure and is harder to get now.

tn13 10y ago

Fiscal consolidation seems like an orphaned child in USA. The left does not believe in it and the right does not care anymore.

perseusprime11 10y ago
If we could pass a public stimulus to help banks become too big to fail, why can't we get together and pass something similar to help our Infrastructure too strong to fail?
- tn13 10y ago
  I think as a rule of thumb government money will always flow in the direction where self interests of politicians and government servants are better served. Building a road is a time tested government program. It is mature, there is lots of competition and opportunity for publicity or kickbacks is limited. The profit margins of the road construction companies are pretty thin too. I dont think politicians benefit by building a road or bridge. Today they benefit by having outrageous programs like high speed train that will not see light of the day for decades to come (or probably never) or transmitting American programs into Cuba (which the cubans cant hear because the signal is blocked). The only way is to put a hard constitutional limit on the government spending as a % of GDP. The government is then forced to take measure to increase GDP if they want to subsidize education of Chinese prostitutes or spend $$$ on study effects of LSD on monkeys.

akiselev 10y ago

While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I don't think the situation is that simple. The military industrial complex is the largest job program in US, maybe even human, history. While there was certainly a huge level of corruption and profiteering during the war, I don't think it's much different than inefficiencies in any other industry except for the magnitude. Even then I think healthcare in the US wastes just as much as the defense industry; maybe even more since our healthcare expenditure is at over 15% of GDP compared to the 20% of government income going to defense. Healthcare also has a huge impact on lives just like any war because every human being in the country comes in contact with our health system, often involving high stakes. I think the way forward for the US is to completely retool the military industrial complex to a civilian/academic industry that utilizes its resources for the public good instead of geopolitical posturing. Between the factories, scientists, engineers, and trained, disciplined soldiers I think that the complex could single handedly turn around our infrastructure decline. US defense spending in 2000 was almost 400 billion so a decade later we'd still have spent the majority of the money we did, war or no. If we just cut the defense industry and reinvested in infrastructure instead of retooling our existing system, there's no telling whether the net result would be any better than what we have now just due to the shock to a $400-600 billion dollar jobs program and any social instability or brinkmanship that results (aka a demagogue like trump winning an election in a backlash).

pcardh0 10y ago

The article you linked, doesn't say we spent $6 trillion in Iraq, it mentions a report saying the costs could be 6 trillion over the next 40 years. The infrastructure report wants 4 trillion by 2020. Very different time periods.

drawkbox 10y ago
2 trillion+ already spent and gone and much of the remaining 4 trillion in interest and healthcare for veterans. That money would be more available today and we still have to pay it. Harder to get money now if large amounts are already spent now and in the future, it does impact 2020 budgets. Are you saying debt now doesn't impact spending? It does indeed. The fact the interest will carry for 40 years is telling in how we are budgeting for the wrong things. Money owed is money owed even if interest only becomes 2 trillion we are still at 4 trillion. It will probably end up as more than 6 trillion as these figures are usually off on the low side. That is money that is on the books that could have been used for infrastructure and is harder to get now.