Who's Paying For Iraq? Your Kids....200k/Minute

[Nbadan]

Iraq has become the largest unfunded social program ever....

Where's the 'conservative' outrage?!?

CNN: Price of Iraq war 10 times pre-war predictions
David Edwards and Greg Wasserstrom
Published: Friday November 2, 2007


When President Bush's emergency supplemental funding request is granted by Congress in the coming weeks, the cost of the Iraq War will reach ten times its original projected cost of $50-60 billion, CNN reports.

At what will soon be a total tab of $576 billion, the Iraq war is second in cost only to World War II. According to CNN's report, every minute troops are deployed in Iraq, the American public pays $200,000 to keep them there. Since the money is not allocated by Congress as part of the regular budget, there is little oversight of how it is spent and Billions of dollars remain unaccounted for in Iraq as the costs continue to mount.

"There's even funding that the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office identify that they don't have any idea where the funding went," Says Travis Sharp of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Center. "They don't know if it went for weapons systems, they don't know if it was operating costs in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Additionally, the current conflict is the first in American history not to be paid for in real time. President Roosevelt raised funds for the Second World War by selling war bonds and Americans paid higher taxes throughout the Vietnam era. The Bush administration, however, is well known for its propensity to cut taxes and increase spending. "Americans have not paid higher taxes to pay for this war, in fact we've had a tax cut, nor have we seen a reduction in domestic spending" Says Robert Hormats of Goldman Sachs, author of The Price of Liberty, a new book examining the history of American military funding. "We've in effected shifted the cost of this war to future generations."

Rawstory (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_Price_of_Iraq_war_10_1102.html)

Of course, the Republican mantra has always been to put it on our nation's credit card, payable by our kids...increased revenue generated by Reagan and Bush tax cuts have never, ever, ever, covered the corresponding increase in spending by the FEDS...that's why we have a $8.5 trillion dollar deficit...Dubya and the 'Conservative do-nothing Congress' alone are responsible for almost half that debt...

[Walter Craparita]

Don't know about the war, but I am paying for my own retirement.

American of the year imo.


It's going to be hillaryious when the Dems don't withdraw and then enact all these lame social programs to boot. :greedy :hungry:

[Nbadan]

....let's say the dollar depreciated to nothing..(which is what it is backed by) ...how much is your retirement then?

[Walter Craparita]

Very true.

Too many rich bastards for that too happen though. I'll take my chances.

[Wild Cobra]

If you notice, there is no conservative outrage for war brecause we believe in the constitution. Our outrage comes in with the social programs that have no basis in the constitution.

I only see socialists and communists complaining about the war costs over other spending.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Since when is wasteful spending part of the constitution?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Since when is wasteful spending part of the constitution?
Will you please stop from reading into something I say that doesn't apply.

Wasteful spending for the war or not is an opinion. Not necessarily a fact. Sure, you can find waste in some areas of it, but funding this war is not factually accurate to call it a waste. It is not proven as such.

Social programs have no basis in the constitution. Providing for Armies does.

Are you being a troll again?

The question was asked where is the conservatives outrage. I explained why there isn't, and you have the audacity to change gears.

The question might as well have been "where is the liberal outrage that we are always deficit spending for social spending".

Until The New Deal, we have always paid down our debts unless we had recession, depression, or war. Blame the deficit and debt on the social programs. Not our president engaging in military action that he believes is right, whereas he is faithfully executing his job as Commander in Chief.

[ChumpDumper]

Will you please stop from reading into something I say that doesn't apply.

Wasteful spending for the war or not is an opinion. Not necessarily a fact. Sure, you can find waste in some areas of it, but funding this war is not factually accurate to call it a waste. It is not proven as such.There is waste in all aspects of this war and will have to be paid for. The question was who will be paying for it, nevermind the characterization.


Social programs have no basis in the constitution. Providing for Armies does.Common defense and general welfare are right next to each other in the constitution.


Are you being a troll again?Are you being an idiot again?


The question was asked where is the conservatives outrage.Conservatives love wasteful spending. Understood.


Until The New Deal, we have always paid down our debts unless we had recession, depression, or war. Blame the deficit and debt on the social programs. Not our president engaging in military action that he believes is right, whereas he is faithfully executing his job as Commander in Chief.So he hasn't done anything about the social programs when he had control of the presidency and congress, then he goes of and starts an unnecessary war and an occupation for which he did virtually no planning.

And you aren't upset about any of that.

Go waste! Huzzah!

[xrayzebra]

Common defense and general welfare are right next to each other in the constitution.


Which social programs were on the books when this
country was being settled? Also what social programs
were on the books during the great depression?

But if I remember correctly, we did have a standing
Army/Navy.

President Grover Cleveland wrote:

"Once the coffers of the general government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again. "

And I think that has been proven through our welfare
programs, not only for the poor, but the rich.

[101A]

....let's say the dollar depreciated to nothing..(which is what it is backed by) ...how much is your retirement then?Because our money is kept in a mattress under our bed....

:rolleyes

Unlike the dollar, my money IS backed by more than "nothing".

[clambake]

would "misplacing 9 billion dollars and 1 million weapons that end up in the hands of our enemies" be considered wasteful spending?

or is it by design?

[ChumpDumper]

Which social programs were on the books when this
country was being settled? Also what social programs
were on the books during the great depression?

But if I remember correctly, we did have a standing
Army/Navy.Don't talk to me about it -- tell the guys who wrote it.


President Grover Cleveland wrote:

"Once the coffers of the general government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again. "Cleveland was kind of an idiot then. Government exists for the public.


And I think that has been proven through our welfare
programs, not only for the poor, but the rich.No shit. I'm all for getting rid of those first and seeing what happenes.

[smeagol]

Start by the fact there should not be a war with Iraq. Everything after that is wasteful.

[RandomGuy]

Add in to the costs of Iraq that AREN'T specifically in the funding bills:

1) Lost wages and productivity by the thousands of dead soldiers.

Vets usually go on to become some of the more productive members of society after getting out. Take the 3000+ dead and multiply what they would have earned in their lifetimes then find the Net Present Value of that.

2) Lost productivity on the part of the TENS of thousands of wounded.

The tens of thousands of wounded have had their lifetime earnings essentially reduced, some as in the case of those with permanent brain injuries to zero.

3) Increased health care costs for the injured, including the economic losses of PTSD.

We aren't talking chump change. The VA and DOD are on the hook for LIFE for a lot of these people and this ISN'T included in those happy fun Iraq supplimentary bills.

4) Increased recruiting and retention costs.

Aside from the obvious 3,000 and counting losses that must be replaced, the war is driving up the bonuses that must be offered to enlistees and to those who choose to stay. Increased demand and decreased supply means WAAAY higher costs.

5) Increased wear and tear on equipment.

Shit is wearing out 25 times faster than normal, if memory serves, and that will get really expensive when you are talking about 25 million dollar tanks, and 100,000 dollar trucks.

[RandomGuy]

All tolled, I would guess that the costs of Iraq are well above the trillion dollar mark, although I would LOVE to see a real economist crunch the numbers.

[Wild Cobra]

Common defense and general welfare are right next to each other in the constitution.

“Provide” for the common defense..

“Promote” the general welfare…

If you have a dictionary, please look up the two words in quotes. The rest of your dribble is too narrow-minded to respond to.


Start by the fact there should not be a war with Iraq. Everything after that is wasteful.
That may be the case, and appears to be, in hindsight. Still, now that we are there, we cannot just suddenly pull the plug.

[ChumpDumper]

“Provide” for the common defense..

“Promote” the general welfare…

If you have a dictionary, please look up the two words in quotes. The rest of your dribble is too narrow-minded to respond to.Promote: To contribute to the progress or growth of; further.

As for the rest of it, it's not my fault you can't support your own crappy ideas.

[Wild Cobra]

Promote: To contribute to the progress or growth of; further.

As for the rest of it, it's not my fault you can't support your own crappy ideas.
I should have specified using an old dictionary that wasn't 'claliforicated.' The words of that definition make it appear that promote is to give, whereas it is support. Provide means giving.

You can never say that the two principles are equal, and provide is definitely a stronger financial term than promote, if you wish to dilute it's true meaning. I'm not going to bother checking on my 100+ year old dictionary. I have before, and there is a stark difference.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

You mean 99++++ year old dictionary.

Use it for spelling, douche.