The business section in the NY Times has some ideas:
For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.
Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.
The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.
So we could have secured our nation and made it a better place to live, regardless of our socio-economic position? We could have started rebuilding New Orleans as well? The decider has no idea on how to decide anything wherein it benefits Americans and not just Bush and the cronies that surround him
I read that article in NY Times and thought it was a great piece...too bad 1.2 Tril was spent on creating a disaster/civil war...and not on making this country better with health care, education, etc.
ReplyDeleteWho gained from the war?
Halliburton and friends gained in this war, most everyone else lost, especially the families of the wounded and fallen.
ReplyDelete