Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Guns or Butter?

Consumer Goods Pros
Home
History
Defense Pros
Defense Cons
Consumer Goods Pros
Consumer Goods Cons
Guestbook !

"...it is vital to provide and sustained the nation with goods."

moneyhardatwork.jpg

It is necessary for the government to spend a great amount of money in the military? Not exactly. We agree that a nation should have a good defense, however it is vital to provide and sustained the nation with goods. I believe that the welfare of a nation will have more positives outcomes for everyone.

 

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, American citizens overwhelmingly favored an increase in military spending. Already the thousands of men and women serving in the military overseas aren’t able to provide or produce civilian goods at home causing a decrease in civilian goods and services (Schiller). Once the house speaker Dennis Hastert was asked whether paying for the war on Iraq would cut into federal spending on social programs. His response was the following “if you have to pay for guns, you can’t pay for all the butter.”(Guns vs.…)

 

Our president has put the war on Iraq first, overall saying that he intends to protect us against future terrorism threats. Both the House and Senate have each passed

Calderon 2

bills pledging roughly $75 billion to fund Bush’s war on Iraq. However many people believe this would only cover a fraction of the cost of war. On the other hand U.S. officials are now congratulating themselves for their generous provision of humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq with an insulting amount of $250 million that is about .3 percent of its $75 billion funding package. (Guns vs...) This measly sum is barely a tenth of the emergency food aid appeal made by the World Food Program, which estimates that it will need about $2.2 billion to assist poor Iraqis  with food for at lest a couple of months. Now we begin to get an idea of how our government prefers to increase military spending over civilian goods and services.

 

The increase of military spending would imply still more sacrifices of civilian goods and services. For about $80 billion, the cost of the 200 planes that make up the U.S.’s long-range bomber fleet, the basic human needs of every human being on earth could be met, according to UNICEF. Now global military spending in 2000 was of $785 billion. Having that in mind, the annual cost to bring education, health care, basic nutrition and sanitation to the undeveloped world is $40 billion, according to The United Nations Development Program. I believe there are many other ways that U.S. military spending could be used on. Ultimately lowering the guns and increasing the butter would benefit more of us

It is necessary for the government to spend a great amount of money in the military? Not exactly. We agree that a nation should have a good defense, however it is vital to provide and sustained the nation with goods. I believe that the welfare of a nation will have more positives outcomes for everyone.

 

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, American citizens overwhelmingly favored an increase in military spending. Already the thousands of men and women serving in the military overseas aren’t able to provide or produce civilian goods at home causing a decrease in civilian goods and services (Schiller). Once the house speaker Dennis Hastert was asked whether paying for the war on Iraq would cut into federal spending on social programs. His response was the following “if you have to pay for guns, you can’t pay for all the butter.”(Guns vs.…)

 

Our president has put the war on Iraq first, overall saying that he intends to protect us against future terrorism threats. Both the House and Senate have each passed

Calderon 2

bills pledging roughly $75 billion to fund Bush’s war on Iraq. However many people believe this would only cover a fraction of the cost of war. On the other hand U.S. officials are now congratulating themselves for their generous provision of humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq with an insulting amount of $250 million that is about .3 percent of its $75 billion funding package. (Guns vs...) This measly sum is barely a tenth of the emergency food aid appeal made by the World Food Program, which estimates that it will need about $2.2 billion to assist poor Iraqis  with food for at lest a couple of months. Now we begin to get an idea of how our government prefers to increase military spending over civilian goods and services.

 

The increase of military spending would imply still more sacrifices of civilian goods and services. For about $80 billion, the cost of the 200 planes that make up the U.S.’s long-range bomber fleet, the basic human needs of every human being on earth could be met, according to UNICEF. Now global military spending in 2000 was of $785 billion. Having that in mind, the annual cost to bring education, health care, basic nutrition and sanitation to the undeveloped world is $40 billion, according to The United Nations Development Program. I believe there are many other ways that U.S. military spending could be used on. Ultimately lowering the guns and increasing the butter would benefit more of us.

Enter supporting content here