It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do people think that "throwing money" at war will work?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
You always hear people say that "throwing money" at the education problem won't work.

Or "throwing money" at socialized health care won't work.

Or "throwing money" at rehabilitating drug addicts won't work.

But those exact same people seem to think that "throwing money" at the war is somehow going to miraculously accomplish the mission (what ever that is)???

Can somebody please explain this to me?

It's even more bizarre this country does this since we don't have a red cent to our name anymore, with the National Debt being at an all time high and all.

It just seems like there's some serious DoubleThink going on, 1984 style.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by harrytuttle]




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Maybe throwing money at a problem really does fix it and the saying is wrong.

Like saying money can't buy happiness. Money can buy you a Jet ski. Have you ever seen anyone be sad on a jet ski. (stolen from a comedian whose name I can't remember)



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
VERY GOOD question OP. I often find myself contemplating the answer to that question as well. Very good question indeed.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mayson
 

Maybe the saying is wrong, so why don't we "throw money" at education, since it works so well to win this war we've been fighting for 9 years?

Every time I read the paper, education budgets are getting cut, and the military budget is increasing.

Kind of makes me curious as to why there is such an inconsistency there.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
You always hear people say that "throwing money" at the education problem won't work.

Or "throwing money" at socialized health care won't work.

Or "throwing money" at rehabilitating drug addicts won't work.

But those exact same people seem to think that "throwing money" at the war is somehow going to miraculously accomplish the mission (what ever that is)???

Can somebody please explain this to me?

It's even more bizarre this country does this since we don't have a red cent to our name anymore, with the National Debt being at an all time high and all.

It just seems like there's some serious DoubleThink going on, 1984 style.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by harrytuttle]


Ok, get a pen and paper to take notes. Bottom line- everybody's chasing the same buck. Education, health care, drug addicts- hell, you name it- it's all financed with tax dollars and there's a lot of competition for those dollars.

Now, those loony sounding people who want to spend more money in Afghanistan and Iraq to accomplish exactly jack squat aren't nearly as loony as you might think. These are fellow patriotic citizens who own stock in companies like KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater (Xe), Lockheed etc. That's where all the war dollars go. Well, to be fair a very small pittance goes to the guys getting blown to bits on a daily basis but the lion's share goes to the corporations.

The way they get the dollars over any other noble cause is by scaring the sh*t out of everyone with never ending references to terror, terrorism, terrorists yada yada yada. And these terrorists who still travel on donkeys are going to somehow make it over here and blow you up while you're carousing Spencer Gifts down at the local mall. You get the picture.

The methadone clinic could do the same thing by just having some of their more sordid looking clients hang out under street lights in affluent neighborhoods shooting dope. Within a week the city will be in an uproar and the clinic will get the funding it wants even if the mayor has to pony up his salary.

Down on the farm it's called "tall hog at the trough" (the tall hog being able to squeeze the little guys out). In our case the tall hog is the group who has the most frightful spin on their story. Crackheads, eh. Johnny can't read, eh. Socialized health care, eh. But those scary, turban wearing, donkey riding guys with RPGs, Kalashnikovs and a map to Springfield Mall get the prize. Give those generals whatever they want!

It's all supply and demand. The Corporatocracy supplies the bowel loosening terror stories, through the government propaganda arm (the media), and we demand protection even if we have to spend ourselves into third world oblivion.

The really hilarious part that Americans never figure out is that we could put the Taliban and al-Qaeda on the government payroll at say, two million dollars per man per year with and additional stipend of say half a million dollars for each wife and child and we'd save nearly 15 billion dollars per year. Think they'd still hate us then? Assuming, of course, that we promise to stop shooting missiles at birthday parties, weddings and family picnics?

Are we all clear on how this works now?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CmdrZero
 

Epic post, well said. Notes taken


So the eventual goal is to have government's only role be to supply a military force, everything else is privatized, and the military contractors subsidized.

I follow ya. It appears that you answered my question.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
It is not the amount of money you "throw at" something, it is how you use the money, wisely with efficiency.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
IMO, if a government is still throwing money at a war after 1 year, then that government isn't really fighting a war. They are financing an agenda.

A war is meant to be a last option and when used its main goal is to punish the enemy quickly and severely.

So severely that the enemy would think big time before they ever messed with that government again.

Of course, we know wars are fought like this nowadays.

So throwing money at war will continue...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Why do people think that throwing money at a whore will work...?
why else would she role over and take her clothes off..?.
ooopsie...
ummm
Donald Rumsfeldstiltskin's missing 2.2 trillin dollars,
the missing skid of money in Iraq...
the money they send to Israel every year
the wad of money they send to pakistan..
etc

thats just one kind of whore...
you also have the whore on drugs...
the whore on poverty
the whore on terror
etc

as Smedley Butler said
"war is a racket"

there is zero need to fight in this day and age.
we should be old enough by now to know better, but nooooo...
Bankers make more in a day of war then a year pf peace.
An we all know who contributes the most to the prezidents election coffers
so till that changes,,,






[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
war is just a front for stealing money it's all fought with corporate mercenaries and our poor troops are the fall guys, they get paid doodoo and have to do all they heavy lifting and be canon fodder for rich greedy
Plutocrats who suck up all our defense dollars.

The 9 billion missing Iraq money is being used to build that Corporate Fortress(forget where BF IRAQ)

So these craptastic betrayers and vampires will have a safe nest to luxuriate in will they orchestrate Armageddon for the rest of us

We as a world should not fall for this trick again



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
everyone knows it won't work, just no one cares.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
You always hear people say that "throwing money" at the education,
at socialized health care, rehabilitating drug addicts won't work.

But those exact same people seem to think that "throwing money" at the war is somehow going to miraculously accomplish the mission (what ever that is)???

Can somebody please explain this to me?

[edit on 28-7-2010 by harrytuttle]


My explanation is that the people who are telling others to 'throw money' at problem X are the same people who are thereto catch it as it falls before it gets to th problem.

It is a scheme to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the rich (Again, and again and again)




top topics



 
1

log in

join