Cruise missiles or assistance to impoverished children?

[Cali_Democrat]

The poverty rate for children in the US will soon hit 25%. Many of these kids go hungry at night. On the other hand, the US just launched millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles at Libya in one day.

So what's more important? Feeding impoverished children or launching missiles and bombs at foreign countries?



or



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/06/60minutes/main20038927.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[David__77]

1. You mean you can't feed children and bomb them at the same time?

I thought that was the US's strategy...

[Cali_Democrat]

4. When you have $14 trillion in debt and give tax breaks to the wealthy....

Money is hard to come by

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Tell that to the 25% of American children that live in poverty

:eyes:

[ProSense]

10. Tell them

about this poll and see if it helps.

The 25% American children were living in poverty before Gaddafi began killing his people.

The notion that the U.S. can only afford to address poverty by not engaging in this action is absurd.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. "The 25% American children were living in poverty before Gaddafi began killing his people. "

That situation needs to be addressed before we engage in any foreign military adventures. Instead of spending money on war, let's spend it here at home. There are plenty of people in need of assistance. We are $14 trillion in debt. We can't afford any more bombs and missiles.

[Shiver]

3. Can we drop exploding food on them?

:hide:

[BklnDem75]

5. What about the kittens?

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. If we hadn't fired the cruise missiles, do you believe Congress would have spent more money on

impoverished children?

[bluethruandthru]

7. I hope this can be used to counter more declarations from Washington

(I used to be able to say "from Republicans") that "WE'RE BROKE!!!! WE HAVE TO CUT EVERY SOCIAL PROGRAM AND "ENTITLEMENT" TO SAVE THE COUNTRY...OH THE HUMANITY!"

I think this is proof that we can find the money if we think it's really necessary.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Other.

Ponies for all!

[VoteProgressive]

39. Wow, you are mostly snarky all the time. nt

[slackmaster]

11. False dilemma

The cruise missiles presently being used in Libya were paid for many years ago. Firing off old inventory has no effect on availability of funds to be used for other purposes now.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. You better believe....

The cruise missiles inventories will be replenished and new wars will be found.

[slackmaster]

13. Those choices will be in the hands of the leaders that we, the people, choose to elect

:hi:

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Indeed. n/t

[Critters2]

20. I voted for a man who was going to get us out of the two wars we were in,

and close Guantanamo.

Who should I vote for next time?

[slackmaster]

21. You can't always get everything that you want

Sorry, that's just how life is sometimes.

[Jakes Progress]

25. Yeah. That's what you get for having hope and believing a politician's words.

[slackmaster]

26. Maybe you and I have found something that we basically agree on

That career politicians are at least part of the problem.

[Critters2]

19. And when we run out of inventory, we'll stop dropping bombs on people.

Right. So much bullshit.

[slackmaster]

22. What do YOU plan to do about it?

:hi:

(Hint: You can't always count on government to do the right thing. Sometimes you have to do things yourself.)

[Critters2]

27. I'm a war tax resister.

I do the best I can to keep from feeding the monster.

What do YOU do?

[Exilednight]

41. Actually they're not. The US does not pay for any of its missiles until after they are fired.

This prevents them for paying for duds.

I know it sounds a bit crazy, but I learned this when I was ADA unit. It was one of the reasons my commanders were so worried about needlessly firing up live ammo when we were at the range.

[dionysus]

14. truly a stupid poll.

[damntexdem]

15. Bad poll: it's both.

False dichotomy = unrec.

[OutNow]

17. Good Poll

This poll asks exactly the right answer. In macroeconomics the question is posed as "Guns or Butter?" when considering how to allocate tax revenue. It always invokes a good classroom discussion. That's its goal. Too bad on DU it invokes questions about the validity of the poll.

BTW - I choose butter.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Aye. Theoretically, this is a good exercise ... but not in reality.

There's no zero sum game here. Would more "butter" be the certain result if we didn't go with the "guns"? Of course not.

False dichotomy at least. And probably flame-baity. Therefore, UNREC.

[Mimosa]

23. NOT a false dichotomy

Jefferson Dem for your own sake, do some reading and studying. There have been many studies showing all people, regardless of age, enjoy prosperity, security and better health in PEACEFUL NATIONS. Peaceful eras are when stability and wealth are more even for all.

[jefferson_dem]

24. That sounds great and all...

But didn't come anywhere close to addressing the points I made.

Perhaps i'm not the one who needs to do some reading and studying. :)

[TheKentuckian]

28. I think he is saying that we are run by crazy douchbags

who don't acknowledge the butter side of the register or pay token attention to it.


Whoever is elected will purchase more tomahawks whether they are used or not and nobody is going to redirect those funds.

Why that is an acceptable state of affairs and how hanging on the nuts of the bone tossers will fix any of this, I can't say.

[Exilednight]

42. It might result in less butter, but it would result in a lower deficit.

If we are going by history, then the money would more than likely be spent somewhere else, and that somewhere else is probably better than where it's being used now.

[Township75]

30. Interesting

I choose guns...because that way I can use it to get some meat and not just eat butter. YOu will die bc of the cholesterol in the butter. But the lean, tasty wild meat....mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[golfguru]

29. Firing cruise missiles on borrowed money from China?

How stupid are we?

[NorthCarolina]

31. The 17% in the poll represents a US Democratic Super Majority

when it comes to issues such as this.

[Macoy51]

32. Mmmm, Hire the Children...

Can we have it both ways?? Hire the impoverished children to work in sweatshops to make our cruise missiles??


macoy

[mkultra]

33. why do you hate America?

why do you hate freedom?

[Cali_Democrat]

34. If Bob Herbert were a DUer, he would vote for option #2

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=2&hp

Must read.

[ZombieHorde]

36. Can't we just compromise and give cruise missiles to impoverished children?

[Drunken Irishman]

37. How 'bout cruise missiles TO impoverished children?

Win-win!

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Other: Make the rich and corporations actually pay taxes and get out of Afghanistan

100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at 500,000 each is $50 million, which would hardly even put a dent in the child hunger problem. If you're going to propose that we spend money in alternative ways then do it in a manner where the numbers actually add up. Otherwise you sound as ignorant as the right wingers who want to see foreign aid cut but don't realize it's a tiny fraction of a percent of the federal budget.

[Keith Bee]

40. Maudlin

:puke:

[boppers]

43. Combine them: Cruise children.

If we strap the children to the missiles, we will eventually eliminate the domestic problem of impoverished children in the US, as we will have sent them to far away war zones!