3 ms·

In 2007 the total estimated cost of the Iraq War was $720 million a day. "The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementa

In 2007 the total estimated cost of the Iraq War was $720 million a day. "The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102074.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09... "SNAP benefits cost $70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied roughly 44.2 million Americans (14% of the population) with an average of $125.51 for each person per month in food assistance. ... Each month, SNAP food stamp benefits are directly deposited into the household's EBT card account." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assista... 70.9 Billion / 0.72 Billion (720 million) is 98.4722 So ... basically, 100 days of the Iraq War could cover all of SNAP for a year. So, for a year, supply 14% of our vulnerable fellow citizens with food versus 100 days of ... what did we get out of the war again? For some reason I can't remember.

rayiner 9y ago
The comment you're replying to asserted that: "One American bombing campaign in Libya or Iraq would be enough to feed and shelter the children and elderly in need." You're changing the goalposts on both ends. Instead of "one American bombing campaign in ... Iraq" it's the cost of the Iraq war overall. And instead of "feed[ing] and shelter[ing] the children and elderly in need," it's the $125 per month average SNAP benefit. That's not even enough to feed children and the elderly, much less house them. SNAP supplements peoples' income, as well as school lunches (for children) and Social Security (for the elderly). This thread isn't about whether the Iraq money could've been put to better use. It's about whether people need to work to eat. And we do. Just to feed and shelter the 14% of the population on SNAP we'd need to spend six or seven times the cost of the Iraq war. (That's not counting education, medical care, etc.) To do the same for service workers like waiters, baristas, cashiers, cab drivers, and garage collectors (who earn around $20-30k per year on average), we'd have to support fully half the population with the labor of the other half. That'd be twenty times the cost of the Iraq war, just to maintain those folks in poverty-level conditions. To pay for that (and nothing else), you'd have to tax the other half of the population 64% of their income. We're not in a post-work economy. Far from it.
- myth_drannon 9y ago
  I was not talking about any social programs, just about people in need of food and shelter not people getting government handouts right now. Saying that 14% is hungry and homeless will be very shocking information to me, basically US is failed state then. I was generalizing common knowledge that everyone at least subconsciously aware. Don't want to go the route of stats/ meaningless numbers unless we start including the cost of wars on food and oil prices

rayiner 9y ago

The comment you're replying to asserted that: "One American bombing campaign in Libya or Iraq would be enough to feed and shelter the children and elderly in need." You're changing the goalposts on both ends. Instead of "one American bombing campaign in ... Iraq" it's the cost of the Iraq war overall. And instead of "feed[ing] and shelter[ing] the children and elderly in need," it's the $125 per month average SNAP benefit. That's not even enough to feed children and the elderly, much less house them. SNAP supplements peoples' income, as well as school lunches (for children) and Social Security (for the elderly). This thread isn't about whether the Iraq money could've been put to better use. It's about whether people need to work to eat. And we do. Just to feed and shelter the 14% of the population on SNAP we'd need to spend six or seven times the cost of the Iraq war. (That's not counting education, medical care, etc.) To do the same for service workers like waiters, baristas, cashiers, cab drivers, and garage collectors (who earn around $20-30k per year on average), we'd have to support fully half the population with the labor of the other half. That'd be twenty times the cost of the Iraq war, just to maintain those folks in poverty-level conditions. To pay for that (and nothing else), you'd have to tax the other half of the population 64% of their income. We're not in a post-work economy. Far from it.

myth_drannon 9y ago
I was not talking about any social programs, just about people in need of food and shelter not people getting government handouts right now. Saying that 14% is hungry and homeless will be very shocking information to me, basically US is failed state then. I was generalizing common knowledge that everyone at least subconsciously aware. Don't want to go the route of stats/ meaningless numbers unless we start including the cost of wars on food and oil prices