Reply With Quote
Last year the USA's gross domestic product was $14 trillion, about twice our national debt ($7 trillion and counting).
Yahoo News
BOSTON (Reuters) - The cost of the
Iraq war could top $2 trillion, far above the White House's pre-war projections, when long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers are included, a study said on Monday.
Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes included in their study disability payments for the 16,000 wounded U.S. soldiers, about 20 percent of whom suffer serious brain or spinal injuries.
They said U.S. taxpayers will be burdened with costs that linger long after U.S. troops withdraw.
"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."
Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high."
Unforeseen costs include recruiting to replenish a military drained by multiple tours of duty, slower long-term U.S. economic growth and health-care bills for treating long-term mental illness suffered by war veterans.
They said about 30 percent of U.S. troops had developed mental-health problems within three to four months of returning from Iraq as of July 2005, citing Army statistics.
Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger U.S. budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.
They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion.
"Americans are, in a sense, poorer by that amount," they said, describing that estimate as conservative.
The projection of a total cost of $2 trillion assumes U.S. troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year. They projected the number of troops there in 2006 at about 136,000. Currently, the United States has 153,000 troops in Iraq.
HIGHER COSTS
Marine Corps Lt. Col. Roseann Lynch, a
Pentagon spokeswoman, said on Monday that the Iraq war was costing the United States $4.5 billion monthly in military "operating costs" not including procurement of new weapons and equipment.
Lynch said the war in Iraq had cost $173 billion to date.
Another unforeseen cost, the study said, is the loss to the U.S. economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they otherwise would and costs related to American civilian contractors and journalists killed in Iraq.
Death benefits to military families and bonuses paid to soldiers to re-enlist and to sign up new recruits are additional long-term costs, it said.
Stiglitz was an adviser to U.S. President
Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the
World Bank.
(Additional reporting by Charles Aldinger in Washington)
Last year the USA's gross domestic product was $14 trillion, about twice our national debt ($7 trillion and counting).
It's just money.
As long as muslims get the right to vote, its well worth it.
o!
George Bush is not on their ballots. Kind of takes the luster off of the right to vote, if you ask me.
Freedom isn't free...
DIal 1-800-movethe tochina-com
Hey! As long as millions and millions of muslims are able to vote for their own leader, then our own independent soveriegn nation has every duty to spend as much as possible to get them that right to vote for their own leader.
I don't ing care if ten hundred million american marines die in the process. As long as those muslims can ing vote, god dammit.
Same fukn people "Bush didn't equip the troops" cry about the bill after order of all hummers to be uparmored... and new body armor?
But the money spent also does a lot of stuff. Like tech transfer and modernizes our warmachine..
Before we started this we didn't have B2B and a lot of stuff..
Now it's like more star trek with translators. Nano armor, bandages that stop bleeding instantly.. all kinds of tech stuff.
Here in San Antonio we even got 8000 jobs and new wing of Bamc to be built. Not including keeping other jobs like the AF basic training and reserve missions.
Freedom isn't free...
how much does is cost v?
That sounds good on the surface, but you realize that a single nation can't borrow money forever....
when are we going to start making money back off of this?
Can we charge those dirty muslims 15 cents for each vote? Or better yet, charge them 17 cents per vote, so we don't have to raise the price of first class stamps here in the Motherland.
you sir are racist
That's why we have nukes... so if we need to borrow we can just blow up another country. Besides we still have fort knox...
And all the chinese DVD's Computers cars and TV's... well.. we have all that .. for some paper .... they send us all the 1080i TV's for some paper with a picture of a white dude on it....
Relax... Freedom good... better guns.. good... more power...
lol..
I hate their guts, but god dammit, they deserve the right to pull that lever and vote for their own leaders and have their OWN republicans cheat their way to the top.
The middle east must become westernized!!!
You scare me Vashner because sometimes I don't think you're joking.
Iraq is about as tribal/ethnic/village-y/primitivley divided as most Muslim countries, as most african countries. Kurd-north/Shiite-south/Sunni-central-west are the NATURAL fault lines, then throw in the 10s of $Bs at stake in who controls the oil, aggravated by Shiite grievances/revenge held against Sunni/Baathist brutalities/slaughter under Saddam.
Stable democracy in Iraq has always been a very long shot, even without the war on terror.
In the context of the war on terror, fighting the war on terror by the long-shot side-show of the Iraq becoming a stable democracy that would somehow "infect" neighboring countries with democracy was totally wrong. All the American and Iraqi lives have been gambled for 1 in 1000 odds, while the Taliban is still running around in Afghanistan, and west Pakistan, ready take over that country as soon as the US and allies reduce their roles. US is aleady doing this.
As I posted last week, a huge problem is that now the purple-finger elections have been held, the govt is still not formed. Once formed, if ever, it will have to be competent to function, and strong enough to convince the army/police to fight/die for that govt, solid enough to support the army logistically, food/salaries/materiel, against the insurgents
Again, an extremely long shot.
And NEVER FORGET that dubya has now admitted lying to the world about WMD/Saddam-Al-Quaida being the justificiation for the war. He has now admitted in the last 2 weeks, that the REAL and ONLY REASON was to bring democracy to Iraq. LIES LIES LIES
The reason dubya/ head/all-of-the-assholes lied about democracy was that they ing knew the US public and the world would have NEVER accepted "bring democracy to iraq" as justification for starting a ing war.
Other lied-about reasons for starting the war:
1. drive up the price of oil to enrich the oilcos and justify drilling in Aaska.
2. give head a background of "war time" to increase the powers, unchecked, of the executive branch.
3. use "war time", along with "9/11", as pretexts to drive through legislation that would further entrench the Repugs in power which is strictly to the benefit of the Repugs, NOT the country.
4. run up huge federal deficits with tax cuts for the rich+corps and with the war, so the inflated, artificial deficits could be used as pretexts to cut spending programs and safety nets for the poor and sick US ciitizens, while continuing to cut taxes for the rich+corps.
The Repugs are truly, deeply repugnant. It's all about survival and entrenchment of the Repugs, while ing over the country. What's a few 1000 US lives, and 10s of 1000s of Iraqi lives, if the result is the entrenchment of the Repugs?
Yeah, those stupid damn republicans better quit cheating and not vote in
the next election. They just keep out voting us dimm-o-craps and that's
just plain cheating. Bring me another box of them hanging chads.
hey xray, are you a kid or do you really have an IQ of like...40.
Dimm-o-craps...isnt even funny. You're not funny. You're not even intelligent.....You're worse than mouse and Yoni combined...and that's tough because Yoni has like 50 known handles and each one gets dumber and dumber
Xray is from the Olde School
And China has nukes too, but that's cool because they'd mostly nuke coastal cities where the liberals live.
I'm gonna have bad dreams about Fox News reporting on the nuclearification of blue coastal cities!
Conflict of interest?
you guys are missing the point...
CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB FROM A FAT GIRL
At least this foo gets it! The sucka shoulda been huntin osama way back then stead of getting hummas and stickin cigars in underage pussy. What the ? Hire the A-Team, shiiitt, we ain't worked in years.
Should Clinton have done this before or after a minister of the Tailban, harboring Bin Laden at the time, visited Governor George Bush in Texas to talk over Unical business?
Oh, my. I think I must have angered RTD. Did I hit a nerve? And yes, I
am just a kid (at heart). That is the reason I like politics, it is a game we can
all play. Some just better than others. Just be a good dimm-o-crap and
follow the party line and you will always be a loser. Have a nice day.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
