A Staggering New Bill For Iraq?

[WoodPeckr]

There's nothing fiscally conservative about Team 'w'.
ANYTHING the MIC wants they get!

Jessica Holzer and Matthew Swibel 11.09.06, 6:00 AM ET


The U.S. armed services have requested a $160 billion supplemental appropriation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the remainder of fiscal year 2007--a staggering amount that, if approved by the Defense Department, may hasten the showdown between resurgent congressional Democrats and the Bush administration over the budget-busting War on Terror.

The request--which will likely include all costs related to the war on terrorism--far surpasses the $94 billion supplemental authorized earlier this year to fund the ongoing wars as well as hurricane recovery in the Gulf and is nearly double the $82 billion Iraq war supplemental outlay of 2005. It comes within days of Republicans' stunning losses in the midterm elections and the resignation of embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was set to decide on the request Nov. 15.............

http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/08/ir...-cx_jh_1109iraq.html?partner=daily_newsletter

 

[Mcluhan]

They'll just print some more money. Think of it as expanding the currency supply.

 

[WoodPeckr]

They'll just print some more money. Think of it as expanding the currency supply.

.....and expanding/growing the economy.......

 

[Asterix]

To date, the US has spent $340 Billion and counting. The true eventual cost of the war will be much higher, certainly topping well over $1 Trillion before we are done. Not factored in to the cost to date is what we will pay for later, in healthcare to the over 22,000 wounded thus far, loss in productvity to the economy due to these injuries, increases in the deficit, increases in oil prices, and paying the bill to replenish the army for all of the hundreds if not thousands of damaged and wrecked vehicles. A Nobel prize winner in economics, and expert in budget projections, Professor Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia puts the eventual cost at $2 Trillion. His projections were based on what I listed above, and also that the US would be in Iraq until 2010, gradually drawing down troop strength from today's levels. A far cry from the $100 Billion to $200 Billion the White House estimated in 2002 for the total cost of the war.

 

[Mcluhan]

A Nobel prize winner in economics, and expert in budget projections, Professor Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia puts the eventual cost at $2 Trillion. His projections were....

NO FAIR!! LOL..I was going to use Joseph Stiglitz's hands on my shovel when I get time bury OTB on the money thread ...Darn! I have to get up too early to beat you Asterix!!

 

[Asterix]

Sorry about that. Actually I was waiting for OTB to chime in and try to claim that because of the US economic juggernaut, the cost of the Iraq war will be simply a blip on the screen.

 

[Asterix]

$2 billion/week is chunk change when you borrow it.
Sooner or later the bill collector is going to demand
payment.

Explain it to OTB, if you think you can. No doubt his response will make the usual reference to the all powerful US GDP.

 

[onthebottom]

I hate to disappoint my critics.....

160b is a ton of money, almost a third of the annual peace time defense bill...... about 1% of GDP.

OTB

 

[Asterix]

I hate to disappoint my critics.....

160b is a ton of money, almost a third of the annual peace time defense bill...... about 1% of GDP.

OTB

You're nothing if not predictable. You seem to act as if the US economy can absorb any amount of money poorly spent if it suits your point of view. It isn't just this $160 Billion, but what has been spent to this point and what will be. At the rate we are going we will easily surpass what was spent in the Vietnam War in real dollars, likely in the next year. I find it fascinating that you seem so concerned over such extremely modest and overdue expenses as raising minimum wage, and are so indifferent to the enormous waste that this war is costing.

 

[Asterix]

The one cost noone factors into the mathematics
is the health care cost for the vets over their lifetimes
One cost I heard a while ago is that price could be
over $1 trillion for the vets including previous warriors
and the current group as they age.

That price tag falls under the veterans administration
and not the pentagon.

So what is the real cost, both in terms of dollars
and the price we vets pay. Since its Veterans Day
I can raise that question. I don't want to hear:
'Thanks for serving.' That's pure rubbish.

One of the cruelest twists of this war, is that soldiers were better protected with body armour, were better evacuated to hospitals, then anytime in previous wars such as Vietnam. The down side is that soldiers who once would have died on the field, are now left with truly horrendous injuries that will take an extraordinary amount of time, pain, and effort to heal, if ever. For some of them, never. We began this mess, and we'll pay for it for years to come.

 

[onthebottom]

You're nothing if not predictable. You seem to act as if the US economy can absorb any amount of money poorly spent if it suits your point of view. It isn't just this $160 Billion, but what has been spent to this point and what will be. At the rate we are going we will easily surpass what was spent in the Vietnam War in real dollars, likely in the next year. I find it fascinating that you seem so concerned over such extremely modest and overdue expenses as raising minimum wage, and are so indifferent to the enormous waste that this war is costing.

I like to think of it as consistent but be that as it may.......

I'm not concerned about a raise in the minimum wage, I just think it's unnecessary and is being pursued for political reasons. I don't think it will have a substantive impact on the economy either way.

160b is a ton of money (that's the second time I've said that), and no, I don't think it will sink the economy. It is a bit amazing that the US economy is doing so well having paid bills (or incurred the debt) of the costs to date.

As for wasted money, there are too many examples to list here but a leaking tunnel in Boston that cost 15b leaps to mind as does a bridge to an empty island in Alaska.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

How about a bridge to nowhere.
In recent years Rs surpassed all others.
Don't forget Haliburton.

We have a higher percent of uninsured workers
than any other industrialized country. Those
are US, OTB. Those are the people you meet
every day.

Yet, they don't count. You don't see them.
How about some crums for them.

I used the bridge to nowhere as one of my examples (in a bipartisan mood given it was an R Senator that put that piece of pork in the budget).

You're not making any sense, have you been drinking this evening. I think you should take a pause, or at least a deep breath.

OTB

 

[Asterix]

160b is a ton of money (that's the second time I've said that), and no, I don't think it will sink the economy. It is a bit amazing that the US economy is doing so well having paid bills (or incurred the debt) of the costs to date.

I don't think $160 Billion will sink the economy either. This is simply the next installment. More than one very knowledgable person has concluded the Iraq war alone will cost us upwards of $2 Trillion. You're right, it is amazing. Now, with all of the debt we are incurring, explain to me how it is sustainable,

 

[onthebottom]

I don't think $160 Billion will sink the economy either. This is simply the next installment. More than one very knowledgable person has concluded the Iraq war alone will cost us upwards of $2 Trillion. You're right, it is amazing. Now, with all of the debt we are incurring, explain to me how it is sustainable,

2 Trillion is about 16% of US GDP. Talk about a big number. If it all went into our public debt today it would put us half way between Canada and Belgium as a % of GDP (about 80%). I'm sure it will come over many years and end up being a smaller % of GDP - and that's if the 2T number is correct.

After having said all of that, it's still a very large cost.

OTB

 

[someone]

It is a bit amazing that the US economy is doing so well having paid bills (or incurred the debt) of the costs to date.OTB

You note that I'm being careful of what part of your post I respond to so we don't get in anohter long debate on the overall U.S. debt . However, this point you bring up would seem to support old fashion Keynesian economic predictions (no, I'm not a fan of Keynesian economics, I just being up that this is consistent with it). When a government increases spending, it gives a short term boost to the economy that is greater than the increase in spending. As you once mentioned that you had a minor in economics, I don't think you will find it so surprising, when you stop to think about it.

 

[onthebottom]

You note that I'm being careful of what part of your post I respond to so we don't get in anohter long debate on the overall U.S. debt . However, this point you bring up would seem to support old fashion Keynesian economic predictions (no, I'm not a fan of Keynesian economics, I just being up that this is consistent with it). When a government increases spending, it gives a short term boost to the economy that is greater than the increase in spending. As you once mentioned that you had a minor in economics, I don't think you will find it so surprising, when you stop to think about it.

A simple concept, but there would have to be a substantive increase in spending as a % of GDP to have this affect would it not?

OTB

 

[WoodPeckr]

2 Trillion is about 16% of US GDP. Talk about a big number. If it all went into our public debt today it would put us half way between Canada and Belgium as a % of GDP (about 80%). I'm sure it will come over many years and end up being a smaller % of GDP - and that's if the 2T number is correct.

OTB

That's a great way to look at things.
Therefore this fantastic massive economy should have no problems in assimilating the costs of healthcare, looming social security payments, looming VA medical costs along with increasing the minimun wages.
Afterall this should make our economy even more robust........

 

[onthebottom]

That's a great way to look at things.
Therefore this fantastic massive economy should have no problems in assimilating the costs of healthcare, looming social security payments, looming VA medical costs along with increasing the minimun wages.
Afterall this should make our economy even more robust........

While I realize you're more comfortable with insults than math you have a good point. I've posted a great Economist article here a few times about how in the long run all the large economies are broke. The social costs (in our case Medicare, Social Security) will be a substantial burden on our economies. This was the focus of Bush's Social Security reform, to privatize part of that burden and pay for that privatization with improved returns from the market. There was a huge class warfare pushback on that plan, as one would expect from the left.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

A lot of OTB's presumption is that the US$ is the
currency of trade for oil and other transactions.

Currency is a commodity. If the US$ continues
to weaken because of fiscal and trade deficits
it may come to pass that the Euro becomes
the currency of trade. At that point, the US
in in deep fiscal problems.

Your given, OTB, is that the US$ is the dominant
currancy of trade. That is not a certainty. That
is a given that can be replaced by another given.

The war, the real war, is economic warfare.
That's what the real power brokers are fighting.
These military and propaganda wars are mere
sidebars to the economic war we are already
struggling with.

I make my case for the USD vs Euro on the monetary thread so I won't repeat it here but you are correct, there is a huge advantage to being the world reserve currency.

I would also agree that the real battle is economic, and we're winning that one hands down.

OTB

 

[WoodPeckr]

While I realize you're more comfortable with insults than math you have a good point. I've posted a great Economist article here a few times about how in the long run all the large economies are broke. The social costs (in our case Medicare, Social Security) will be a substantial burden on our economies. This was the focus of Bush's Social Security reform, to privatize part of that burden and pay for that privatization with improved returns from the market. There was a huge class warfare pushback on that plan, as one would expect from the left.

OTB

The problem with 'privatization' is the people fear a company like Halliburton being put in charge and then being run as FEMA with Brownie as CEO!.....
Face it this is the way the GOP does things!