3 ms·
But only for war not for social benefits, that would be irresponsible spending
by croes 8mo ago
But only for war not for social benefits, that would be irresponsible spending
- westmeal 8mo agoIn war you don't have immigrants lining up for FREE HAND OUTS etc etc
- InitialLastName 8mo agoOne might argue that this war is a free hand-out to foreign interests.
- phatfish 8mo agoWell, as long as you bomb countries on the other side of the world. Someone else (the long suffering US allies) can deal with all the displaced peoples then.
- croes 8mo agoThose immigrants who do all those low paid jobs and who paid billions of taxes without the benefits? Schrödinger‘s immigrant, doesn’t work and takes American jobs
- baggachipz 8mo agoNo, during war you have refugees doing that. But where are these immigrants looking for free handouts? All the ones coming here are looking for work.
- westmeal 8mo agoGuys this was sarcasm btw
- Alupis 8mo agoThe accounting for the current conflict is far from straight forward. The money was largely already allocated to military things, and there's fixed constants of payroll, food, fuel, munitions etc that would be spent regardless on training, operations, readiness, and just existing. The media doesn't differentiate these things to deliberately inflate the figures.
- spacemark 8mo agoSo what do you think the cost of the war is, then? $50bn? Seems like splitting hairs or missing the point. Even $50bn is too much for a war that congress nor the American people approved.
- Alupis 8mo agoWhen's the last time Congress approved of a war? How about the American people? Maybe that first six months of Afghanistan? Maybe... The President doesn't need approval for military action, and hasn't for decades. In a not so subtle way, we elect Presidents to make decisive decisions, such as when to engage in a conflict. And to address your question, the cost is probably neutral so far. We'll need to replace many of the munitions, but we do that anyway. The loss of life is probably the most costly aspect of this conflict thus far.
- spacemark 8mo agoThe cost of the war is zero? You're off your rocker. The constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war and authorize military force. The fact that our country's politicians have manipulated our system to the point that this has been disregarded basically since WWII should never be normalized. This country has been run by the rich for a very long time and democracy is on its way out.
- croes 8mo agoThem why has Hegseth ask for another $200 billions? https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/19/hegseth-iran-war-budget.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/19/hegseth-iran-war-budget.html
- Alupis 8mo ago> House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., responding to a CNBC question Thursday, said he has “not heard anything official from anybody” on the $200 billion number. But he said the figure could also include things that would otherwise be sought in the fiscal 2027 spending bill. > Hassett, speaking on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” said at that time that he did not think the U.S. needed to ask Congress for more money for the war effort “right now.” > The massive figure would increase production of the critical munitions that the U.S. and Israel have used to strike thousands of targets since the conflict began, three other people familiar with the matter told the Post. > U.S. military operations against Iran, which began Feb. 28, have already cost $12 billion as of Sunday, according to Kevin Hassett, director of the White House’s National Economic Council. And a reminder, the $12B figure includes all of the normal things that would be spent regardless if we are in a conflict or not.
- CalChris 8mo agoDefense spending is social spending just unequally distributed.