http://www.policymic.com/articles/62733/things-we-could-pay-for-instead-of-a-war-in-syria
Your government is preparing to spend tens of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars on a war you probably don't agree with. As the Obama administration continues to plan its attack on Syria, it begs the question:What could we be paying for besides a war with Syria?Is there not any area here at home that could use that funding?ABC News reports that part of the attack involves 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from four Navy destroyer ships parked in the eastern Mediterranean. With a single Tomahawk costing $1.5 million, that portion of the attacks alone will cost an estimated $300 million. Add in the aerial strike and we are looking at a monumental cost in an effort of which a majority of Americans disapprove. If we're determined to spend such a huge amount of taxpayer dollars, we should at least consider the various uses for such funds and not rush to a decision because another country is involved in a civil war.
first i beg to differ some peoples mindset is preparing for a war, Pres. is not throwing down the gauntlet he is taking the time to evaluate, we need to remember we as well as those in congress popping off do not have all the info he has so as usual they are half cocked and making accusations not proven to be true.
they can't wait till tomorrow when he speaks on this they choose to mislead us into thinking they know, truth is they don't know Pres. he was proven that twice.
The first thing that comes to mind is the national debt. As our debt steadily hikes toward a whopping $17 trillion, we will soon have no choice but to stare it in the face and deal with it. Contrary to what some elected officials seem to believe, ignoring it doesn't mean it will eventually disappear on its own — this is a debt that will be a burden to my generation and those after us. Beginning to pay off even a small chunk of this debt will be a step in the right direction.An equally worthy selection is to invest some money in the states. Rather than intruding on the states' constitutional rights to operate their own affairs, the federal government could return this money to the states and allow them to use it as they see fit. Decisions made at the state level are much closer to the people, thus closer to their specific needs. State A may need to invest more in education, State B may want to create a larger budget for transportation, and State C may want to give tax incentives to minorities to start their own small businesses. The needs of individual states vary; an overreaching federal government can never know their needs as well as they do.
ok on the budget but are there not more pressing issues like health care, food stamps and all those things the republicans want to take because of lack of funds, that would be the real right thing to do paying off debt is good but if you allow the people to die from malnutrition and lack of health care IMO trumps debt, debt will get paid but will Americans right to life the republican run around falsely claiming they are for, babies only till birth then you become no longer a talking point you become a liability that needs those things they want to take.
what does all this mean if there are no people to engage them, absolutely nothing like war.
