NationStates Jolt Archive

It looks like another $50 billion are likely to be appropriated for Iraq (as early as) today. That's on top of an appropriation of $150 billion earmarked for Iraq next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says we're spending $12 billion a week on the war in Iraq. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14715287)

It's an easy number to ignore. Billions here and there mean nothing. Then I sat down and did a little rough working. And yes - I know it doesn't work in reality quite as it does in this calculation, but it's something worth thinking about.

$12 billion a week of expenditure, is equal to about 1.7 billion a day.

That's about 5 dollars per person in this country, per day. (Assuming a population of about 350 million).

That's about $1800 per person, per year.


In effect, if we stopped the current haemorrhage of funds into the Iraq 'war', we could reduce the tax bill of EVERY citizen, by almost two thousand dollars.

Shouldn't 'the party of fiscal responsibility' be a little more.. .I don't know.. fiscally responsible?

Shouldn't 'the party of fiscal responsibility' be a little more.. .I don't know.. fiscally responsible?

See, you've misunderstood what they mean by fiscal responsibility. What they mean is they'll jump at every chance to criticise the fiscal failings/mistakes/irresponsibilites of the other party, not that they'll actually be fiscally responsible.

As I understand it, that's how politics work in America. Don't like the Dems, vote Rep, and vice versa.

But it’s paying off. You are guaranteed that your oil addiction can be extended.

You all can keep driving in your SUV’s and keep the air condition of your dogs’ cage at a high level.

See, you've misunderstood what they mean by fiscal responsibility. What they mean is they'll jump at every chance to criticise the fiscal failings/mistakes/irresponsibilites of the other party, not that they'll actually be fiscally responsible.


I don't pretend to understand it.... threaten a veto on $22 billion on domestic spending (education, health, etc), while asking for $200 billion to send overseas... at the same time our debt to the rest of the world increases at about $2 billion a day. ANd the money spent overseas, has no accountability?

I'm not seeing any responsibility... much less 'fiscal' responsibility.


As I understand it, that's how politics work in America. Don't like the Dems, vote Rep, and vice versa.

Depressing as it is, I think you're right. I've talked to a lot of people about their politics... and for the most part, those who plan on voting Republican at the next election are citing reasons like "I'd vote for anyone to keep Hillary out", and much the same reasons are offered for voting Democrat.

yeah its a pretty bitter pill to swallow that the president has to veto an extra $10billion to make sure that our children have health insurance but he needs another $200 billion to deal with the mess he has made in iraq.

we can always find the funds to kill foreigners but when it comes to our own children we are just too poor.

"Mr. President could you help my family pay for its medicine?"

"I'm sorry lower class, uneducated individual who I know nothing about but am already passing judgment on, this country cannot afford to pay for your medicine."

"But why?"

"Because I'm invading another random country today to protect our freedoms from turrists."

"Son of a motherfucking bitch, fuck this I'm going to Europe..." girl walks away vowing to become one of those turrists the president was talking about.

Every day, I stop and wonder just where all that money is really going.

I mean, it's like a vast river, like Niagra, just pouring and pouring into a fog. Where does it go? I don't think the money is actually being burned to heat Iraqi homes or fuel armored vehicles. So I wonder, who the hell is getting it, at the end of the day?

And I also wonder when war profiteering stopped being a crime under US law.

Every day, I stop and wonder just where all that money is really going.

I mean, it's like a vast river, like Niagra, just pouring and pouring into a fog. Where does it go? I don't think the money is actually being burned to heat Iraqi homes or fuel armored vehicles. So I wonder, who the hell is getting it, at the end of the day?

And I also wonder when war profiteering stopped being a crime under US law.

my husband heard a statistic on tv yesterday that said that children born this year are going to owe $250,000 each in national debt by the time they are adults.

thats a little scary.

But it’s paying off. You are guaranteed that your oil addiction can be extended.
Really, though? I wonder how much oil is being used by US forces in Iraq, to power vehicles, to provide petroleum based products, etc. As much as some people would like to say otherwise, I doubt that Iraq is really helping Americans obtain more of anything.

It looks like another $50 billion are likely to be appropriated for Iraq (as early as) today. That's on top of an appropriation of $150 billion earmarked for Iraq next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says we're spending $12 billion a week on the war in Iraq. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14715287)

It's an easy number to ignore. Billions here and there mean nothing. Then I sat down and did a little rough working. And yes - I know it doesn't work in reality quite as it does in this calculation, but it's something worth thinking about.

$12 billion a week of expenditure, is equal to about 1.7 billion a day.

That's about 5 dollars per person in this country, per day. (Assuming a population of about 350 million).

That's about $1800 per person, per year.


In effect, if we stopped the current haemorrhage of funds into the Iraq 'war', we could reduce the tax bill of EVERY citizen, by almost two thousand dollars.

Shouldn't 'the party of fiscal responsibility' be a little more.. .I don't know.. fiscally responsible?
Don't you mean $12 Billion per month, not per week?

In effect, if we stopped the current haemorrhage of funds into the Iraq 'war', we could reduce the tax bill of EVERY citizen, by almost two thousand dollars.

Shouldn't 'the party of fiscal responsibility' be a little more.. .I don't know.. fiscally responsible?

That would only be true if this weren't debt spending. It's more that, if we stopped dumping money into Iraq, we might actually pay off a little bit of the interest the government owes on all of the money they've borrowed. =(

"Mr. President could you help my family pay for its medicine?"

"I'm sorry lower class, uneducated individual who I know nothing about but am already passing judgment on, this country cannot afford to pay for your medicine."

"But why?"

"Because I'm invading another random country today to protect our freedoms from turrists."

"Son of a motherfucking bitch, fuck this I'm going to Europe..." girl walks away vowing to become one of those turrists the president was talking about.

The President is obviously an idiot. So you're saying he would be less of one if he gave away freebies to people? Maybe if it came out of his pocket, but I fail to see how handing out other people's (taxpayers) money makes him a better human being.

The President is obviously an idiot. So you're saying he would be less of one if he gave away freebies to people? Maybe if it came out of his pocket, but I fail to see how handing out other people's (taxpayers) money makes him a better human being.

I said help, as in aide, not as in 'Do it all for me so I can live the rest of my life on welfare'

my husband heard a statistic on tv yesterday that said that children born this year are going to owe $250,000 each in national debt by the time they are adults.

thats a little scary.

At least that much, based on current spending. At the rate we're going, it could come out to more.

Really, though? I wonder how much oil is being used by US forces in Iraq, to power vehicles, to provide petroleum based products, etc. As much as some people would like to say otherwise, I doubt that Iraq is really helping Americans obtain more of anything.
Oh, come now. Everyone knows the Iraq war has already helped Americans obtain more enemies and more government inteference in our lives.

At least that much, based on current spending. At the rate we're going, it could come out to more.

i too wonder where the money is going. we know that billions were indiscriminately handed out as soon as baghdad fell. some author doing an interview on the daily show said that we send over so much cash that it had to be loaded by the palletfull onto airplanes. it all evaporated into the "reconstruction".

the blackwater body guards that guard us govt officials in iraq get $30K PER MONTH (or at least thats what blackwater charges for them). i dont know what ungodly amount they (or some other contractor) charge for the slave laborers in the green zone who work 12 hours a day for $10/day but im sure its at least $100/day.

we pay outrageous prices for contracted services and still leave our military with less than optimal protection.

im SO glad that george bush was president on 9/11. al gore just wouldnt have been able to keep us safe like bush has.

It looks like another $50 billion are likely to be appropriated for Iraq (as early as) today. That's on top of an appropriation of $150 billion earmarked for Iraq next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says we're spending $12 billion a week on the war in Iraq. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14715287)

It's an easy number to ignore. Billions here and there mean nothing. Then I sat down and did a little rough working. And yes - I know it doesn't work in reality quite as it does in this calculation, but it's something worth thinking about.

$12 billion a week of expenditure, is equal to about 1.7 billion a day.

That's about 5 dollars per person in this country, per day. (Assuming a population of about 350 million).

That's about $1800 per person, per year.


In effect, if we stopped the current haemorrhage of funds into the Iraq 'war', we could reduce the tax bill of EVERY citizen, by almost two thousand dollars.

Shouldn't 'the party of fiscal responsibility' be a little more.. .I don't know.. fiscally responsible?


George W Bush is only fiscally responsible to himself and his rich friends. If you go online and check his background you will find he ran at least two companies in the ground fiscally while he was controlling them before he became President. Now I believe he is doing the same to our country. Can we afford for him to finish his term? Where will it leave us if he does? Think about it!

i too wonder where the money is going. we know that billions were indiscriminately handed out as soon as baghdad fell. some author doing an interview on the daily show said that we send over so much cash that it had to be loaded by the palletfull onto airplanes. it all evaporated into the "reconstruction".

the blackwater body guards that guard us govt officials in iraq get $30K PER MONTH (or at least thats what blackwater charges for them). i dont know what ungodly amount they (or some other contractor) charge for the slave laborers in the green zone who work 12 hours a day for $10/day but im sure its at least $100/day.

we pay outrageous prices for contracted services and still leave our military with less than optimal protection.

im SO glad that george bush was president on 9/11. al gore just wouldnt have been able to keep us safe like bush has.


If Al Gore was president we wouldn't need to be protected because we wouldn't be in the cataclysmic shithole we're in now.

i too wonder where the money is going. we know that billions were indiscriminately handed out as soon as baghdad fell. some author doing an interview on the daily show said that we send over so much cash that it had to be loaded by the palletfull onto airplanes. it all evaporated into the "reconstruction".

the blackwater body guards that guard us govt officials in iraq get $30K PER MONTH (or at least thats what blackwater charges for them). i dont know what ungodly amount they (or some other contractor) charge for the slave laborers in the green zone who work 12 hours a day for $10/day but im sure its at least $100/day.

we pay outrageous prices for contracted services and still leave our military with less than optimal protection.

im SO glad that george bush was president on 9/11. al gore just wouldnt have been able to keep us safe like bush has.
Halliburton/Bechtel, Blackwater...I wonder how many others were all lined up at the trough, bibs tied on, even before the first shot was fired (prematurely; what a wonderful Freudianism that was).

My cynicsm has been cranked up to a toxic high by the Bush adminstration. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that his (by which I mean Cheney's) war "plan" was devised to do anything other than generate as much cash as possible to a select list of what I can only think of as corporate sponsors, and to keep that money machine going for as long as possible, hopefully forever. Why do I think this? Because I just do not see anything else happening. Aside from all the dying, that is.

I said help, as in aide, not as in 'Do it all for me so I can live the rest of my life on welfare'

They're still freebies. Any old idiot can strong-arm a bunch of people in to paying money (taxes), then give it away and be thought kind-hearted.

Halliburton/Bechtel, Blackwater...I wonder how many others were all lined up at the trough, bibs tied on, even before the first shot was fired (prematurely; what a wonderful Freudianism that was).

My cynicsm has been cranked up to a toxic high by the Bush adminstration. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that his (by which I mean Cheney's) war "plan" was devised to do anything other than generate as much cash as possible to a select list of what I can only think of as corporate sponsors, and to keep that money machine going for as long as possible, hopefully forever. Why do I think this? Because I just do not see anything else happening. Aside from all the dying, that is.

i try to keep those cynical thoughts away but i DO wonder what the real reason for the war was.

bush wanted to take out hussein well before 9/11. he used the attacks as a means of whipping up enough fear in the public to believe that iraq had some plan to attack us. we were scared enough to believe it.

but did "cheney" use BUSH'S hatred of hussein to push the whole plan for an entirely different motive? (i put cheney in quotes because i dont know that it was cheney or someone else) it would have been easy enough to do. cheney could have thought that the iraqi oil fields were easy pickings. he could have wanted more profits for his friends by starting a new war. he could have had the "patriotic" motive of preventing hussein from moving oil to a euro price instead of a dollar price. it could be some other unrevealed motive.

id like to know. it wont help us get out but it would be nice to know what our people and the iraqi people have really been dying for.

I'm not seeing any responsibility... much less 'fiscal' responsibility.

This is a common mistake. You see, the word "Fisc" means "Poor", "Overtaxed", "In debt", "Screwed over by the government", etc.

In that sense, the party is "responsible" for the thorough "fiscing" you are all receiving.

Don't you mean $12 Billion per month, not per week?

Not according to that Senate Majority fellow. And it's Hal's figures I based my calculations on. It'd still be a shitload of money either way, though, right?

The President is obviously an idiot. So you're saying he would be less of one if he gave away freebies to people? Maybe if it came out of his pocket, but I fail to see how handing out other people's (taxpayers) money makes him a better human being.

You're missing the point - that money is already all present and accounted for.

Or... NOT accounted for, if we want to be a little more precise.

Is there a good reason why this money that is already there... shouldn't be put to a good use, like helping some of the disadvantaged back home?

I'd be happier voting for a bit of redistribution of the wealth to those who really need it.... than voting for sending dollars overseas to be largely swallowed up by faceless, non-accountable (almost entirely unregulated) crony-corps.

id like to know. it wont help us get out but it would be nice to know what our people and the iraqi people have really been dying for.

My honest opinion...the administration thought Afghanistan and Iraq would be cakewalks compared to the real target...Iran.

We've got ground troops on two of Irans borders, and naval/air dominance. They're practically surrounded...but we're hamstrung by Iraq, Afghanistan, and other committments.

The administration probably intended to invade Iran right after the 2004 elections...but the horrific misjudgement regarding Iraq has shot their entire plan to hell.

So they'll keep letting people die until Bush's term is up...and then it becomes someone else's mess to clean up. :( :mad:

Oh...and a nice link regarding some more of the "costs" of the Iraq war.

The answer to "Who won Iraq?" is Iran in the short run, and in the long run, China and India.

While we flounder around in the Dust Bowl, they've been running up their reserves, putting the money into infrastructure and bullion. The moment you wait for in a setup like this is the inevitable alliance between the regional winner and the global winners. And voila, it's already happened: In February Iran and India signed a pipeline deal sending Iranian oil to the exploding Indian market, bypassing Bush's Saudi/U.S. petro-outpost. If it weren't for Pakistan, the pipeline would already be in place. And as you might have guessed, Iran and India are talking about how easily the pipeline can be looped over the Himalayas to China - an overland route invulnerable to U.S. sea power.

Luckily Pakistan lies right across the route and Pakistan is so hopelessly messed up that the CIA and ISI between them should be able to keep the black smoke pouring out of any section of line the Asiatics manage to finish.

But even that's bad news: we're reduced to a spoiler role, conspiring with the nastiest creeps in the world, the ISI, to keep our blood enemy Iran from forming a natural, inevitable market relationship with the two rising powers that have spent their money smart while we pissed it down the Tigris. A country as big and resilient as America can afford to lose a war now and then, especially when it's in a place like Nam, way off the trade routes. But a war like this... I don't know.

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8565&IBLOCK_ID=35

...but Republicans are the party of national defense. :rolleyes:

What if we would have taken that 50 billion and used it to build the economy of Gaza and the West Bank? What if we would have used it to give a people an economic stake it the world and taken them from utter poverty to businessmen? Which would have won us more friends in the mid east? Which would have lowered the terror risk? Which would have been the "Christian" thing for a "Christian?" president and nation to do?

My honest opinion...the administration thought Afghanistan and Iraq would be cakewalks compared to the real target...Iran.

We've got ground troops on two of Irans borders, and naval/air dominance. They're practically surrounded...but we're hamstrung by Iraq, Afghanistan, and other committments.

The administration probably intended to invade Iran right after the 2004 elections...but the horrific misjudgement regarding Iraq has shot their entire plan to hell.

So they'll keep letting people die until Bush's term is up...and then it becomes someone else's mess to clean up. :( :mad:


well theres another cynical thought in my head...

its a good thing we started with iraq. it IS a cakewalk compared to what we would have faced in iran. they would love to start a war now but we just dont have the personnel for it.

damn this thread makes me want to rant.

My honest opinion...the administration thought Afghanistan and Iraq would be cakewalks compared to the real target...Iran.

We've got ground troops on two of Irans borders, and naval/air dominance. They're practically surrounded...but we're hamstrung by Iraq, Afghanistan, and other committments.

The administration probably intended to invade Iran right after the 2004 elections...but the horrific misjudgement regarding Iraq has shot their entire plan to hell.

So they'll keep letting people die until Bush's term is up...and then it becomes someone else's mess to clean up. :( :mad:

Oh...and a nice link regarding some more of the "costs" of the Iraq war.



http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8565&IBLOCK_ID=35

...but Republicans are the party of national defense. :rolleyes:

God bless the War Nerd™.

The real cost of Iraq is in the lives lost, not the money spent. Money can be reprinted, people can't come back.

better than not giving any money at all I say

at least this way someone in Iraq is a little bit happy :)

It looks like another $50 billion are likely to be appropriated for Iraq (as early as) today. That's on top of an appropriation of $150 billion earmarked for Iraq next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says we're spending $12 billion a week on the war in Iraq. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14715287)

It's an easy number to ignore. Billions here and there mean nothing. Then I sat down and did a little rough working. And yes - I know it doesn't work in reality quite as it does in this calculation, but it's something worth thinking about.

$12 billion a week of expenditure, is equal to about 1.7 billion a day.

That's about 5 dollars per person in this country, per day. (Assuming a population of about 350 million).

That's about $1800 per person, per year.


In effect, if we stopped the current haemorrhage of funds into the Iraq 'war', we could reduce the tax bill of EVERY citizen, by almost two thousand dollars.

Shouldn't 'the party of fiscal responsibility' be a little more.. .I don't know.. fiscally responsible?

This is why there wont be many wars in foreseeable future. It is just too expensive. Even when one side (US) is so much stronger than the other (Iraq).

yeah its a pretty bitter pill to swallow that the president has to veto an extra $10billion to make sure that our children have health insurance but he needs another $200 billion to deal with the mess he has made in iraq.

we can always find the funds to kill foreigners but when it comes to our own children we are just too poor.

Well, from what I know, which isn't a lot, the money for defense and other things are appropriated separately. Something about zero sum. It doesn't make sense to me, because all the money comes from US, so we should be able to decide where it goes and all.

The intentions of the government and their corporate sponsors is for the war to drag on for awhile anyway.

This is why there wont be many wars in foreseeable future. It is just too expensive. Even when one side (US) is so much stronger than the other (Iraq).

The wars aren't just funded by the government, their funded by international corporations.

better than not giving any money at all I say

at least this way someone in Iraq is a little bit happy :)

You'd be surprised how much of this money comes back to America, of course right into the pockets of the ruling elite.

Real cost... when I read the title I thought this would be about the growing deaths of both American troops and Iraqis, as well as the number of displaced persons. How deceptive the title is.

The generation coming into power will be the one who pays the most for this because we're going to have to clean up the mess and we don't even know what the final bill is going to total to.

Or we could put that money to upgrade infrastructure.

Alright, first of all the current Iraq expenditure is around 10 billion a month, not 13 a week.

Also,
Quote: Ashmoria: :sniper:
yeah its a pretty bitter pill to swallow that the president has to veto an extra $10billion to make sure that our children have health insurance but he needs another $200 billion to deal with the mess he has made in iraq.

we can always find the funds to kill foreigners but when it comes to our own children we are just too poor.
\Quote

The bill allows families with incomes 200%-300% above the poverty line, to obtain health insurance, they are expanding health insurance to places where private health insurance is already active, thus increasing taxes for a service that is already more efficiently provided.

----------------------

Blasphemous Priest:
If Al Gore was president we wouldn't need to be protected because we wouldn't be in the cataclysmic shithole we're in now.

We'd either all be dead, or we would have terrorist attacks like in london, where we would have a subway or car bombing every other week.

----------------------

Alright, first of all the current Iraq expenditure is around 10 billion a month, not 13 a week.

Also,
Quote: Ashmoria: :sniper:
yeah its a pretty bitter pill to swallow that the president has to veto an extra $10billion to make sure that our children have health insurance but he needs another $200 billion to deal with the mess he has made in iraq.

we can always find the funds to kill foreigners but when it comes to our own children we are just too poor.
\Quote

The bill allows families with incomes 200%-300% above the poverty line, to obtain health insurance, they are expanding health insurance to places where private health insurance is already active, thus increasing taxes for a service that is already more efficiently provided.



i think the figure was more like 400%. if a family doesnt have health insurance and for whatever reason cant afford it, i would be happy to have just their kids covered. no one is going to drop their regular insurance for a plan that only covers their kids.

not that it was my point. the point it that it IS a bitter pill to find out that we cant do all sorts of domestic things that cost far less than this idiotic war but we have endless funds to devote to killing people in other countries


Blasphemous Priest:
If Al Gore was president we wouldn't need to be protected because we wouldn't be in the cataclysmic shithole we're in now.

We'd either all be dead, or we would have terrorist attacks like in london, where we would have a subway or car bombing every other week.

----------------------

keep telling yourself that. it will keep you from getting an ulcer over how badly bush has fucked us up.

Depressing as it is, I think you're right. I've talked to a lot of people about their politics... and for the most part, those who plan on voting Republican at the next election are citing reasons like "I'd vote for anyone to keep Hillary out", and much the same reasons are offered for voting Democrat.

This is sad, but very, very true. Every Presidential election since the 80s has not been about electing the best candidate. Its been about electing the lesser of two evils.

It is far beyond time for a political shift in this country. We need a third party, something more moderate and willing to cooperate to find a "Win/Win" solution to the nation's problems. Unfortunately our political system makes it nearly impossible for a third party to be viable in an election, much less exist.

This is sad, but very, very true. Every Presidential election since the 80s has not been about elected the best candidate. Its been about elected to lesser of two evils.

It is far beyond time for a political shift in this country. We need a third party, something more moderate and willing to cooperate to find a "Win/Win" solution to the nation's problems. Unfortunately our political system makes it nearly impossible for a third party to be viable in an election, much less exist.

Who needs a third party, when we've got Ron Paul?

Who needs a third party, when we've got Ron Paul?

He is not by any means libertarian. He's a Republican just like the others; he's just better at pretending he isn't really.

It looks like another $50 billion are likely to be appropriated for Iraq (as early as) today. That's on top of an appropriation of $150 billion earmarked for Iraq next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says we're spending $12 billion a week on the war in Iraq. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14715287)

It's an easy number to ignore. Billions here and there mean nothing. Then I sat down and did a little rough working. And yes - I know it doesn't work in reality quite as it does in this calculation, but it's something worth thinking about.

$12 billion a week of expenditure, is equal to about 1.7 billion a day.

That's about 5 dollars per person in this country, per day. (Assuming a population of about 350 million).

That's about $1800 per person, per year.


In effect, if we stopped the current haemorrhage of funds into the Iraq 'war', we could reduce the tax bill of EVERY citizen, by almost two thousand dollars.

Shouldn't 'the party of fiscal responsibility' be a little more.. .I don't know.. fiscally responsible?


Sorry but after reading this something just doesn't add up for me. $12 billion a week works out to $624 billion, which is far more than $250 billion that all estimates give for our 2007 Iraq/Afghanistan spending budget. Am I missing something, or is Harry Ried drastically overdramatizing this.

Now, I do think that spending $250 billion is really way too much for us to spend, but considering the consequences for cutting that funding, I accept that it must be reasonable, given my lack of understanding of such matters.

I said help, as in aide, not as in 'Do it all for me so I can live the rest of my life on welfare'

This is how I feel. I like the philosophy “Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”

While he initial upfront costs might seem higher with this type of plan, in the long run, by providing education and job placement for welfare recipients, then cutting them off after a specified and reasonable period of time, like 4 to 8 years, you have the potential to increase tax revenue, and effectively decrease the welfare costs.


Unfortunately, for Democrats, helping the poor advance their lot in life, decreases their long term constituency. Unfortunately, for Republicans, helping the poor advance their lot in life, upsets their current constituency, and decreases their current electability. So instead of helping those on welfare improve both parties are interested in maintaining the status quo.

If Al Gore was president we wouldn't need to be protected because we wouldn't be in the cataclysmic shithole we're in now.

I think your right, after 911, we would have lobbed a few missiles into Afghanistan, like Clinton in Somalia, instead of actually going after Bin Laden, and we wouldn't be in Iraq either. Oh, and don't forget our economy would be weakened, after all it started a downward trend the last year of Clinton's administration. Bush's retroactive taxcuts for the middle class are all that pulled us out of that.

The real cost of Iraq is in the lives lost, not the money spent. Money can be reprinted, people can't come back.


This is something that I have been wanting to say. It is terribly unfortunate, that we were pulled into this situation. The way I see it, we were lied to in order to facilitate a regime change in Iraq.

My problem is that now, we are obligated to correct that horrific mistake, and now it is costing us fare more that we can afford, both in the lives of our troops and their families, and in money.

Who needs a third party, when we've got Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is a Republican in Libertarian clothing. Don't trust anything he tells you. He is just pandering to the Libertarian voters. Still he won't stand a chance of being elected and will hardly have a chance of getting his voice heard.

You're missing the point - that money is already all present and accounted for.

Or... NOT accounted for, if we want to be a little more precise.

Is there a good reason why this money that is already there... shouldn't be put to a good use, like helping some of the disadvantaged back home?

I'd be happier voting for a bit of redistribution of the wealth to those who really need it.... than voting for sending dollars overseas to be largely swallowed up by faceless, non-accountable (almost entirely unregulated) crony-corps.

I'd be happier seeing the wealth returned to where it came from, or used to pay-off the debt.

Real cost... when I read the title I thought this would be about the growing deaths of both American troops and Iraqis, as well as the number of displaced persons. How deceptive the title is.

The generation coming into power will be the one who pays the most for this because we're going to have to clean up the mess and we don't even know what the final bill is going to total to.

The title is deceptive because I used the term 'real cost' to refer to a real cost?

Everyone knows that people are dying in Iraq. We know that American soldiers are dying for no real purpose... we know that we have seen a pretty much constant state of aggression in response to our occupation. We know that more Iraqis are dying.

And yet, like the use of 'billions of dollars'... it doesn't really touch most of us that much until someone we KNOW gets hurt or killed.

What I am pointing out is that - every day - this is touching us, in very real terms. We can refuse 'internal' care for being too expensive, whilst at the same time pissing ten times that amount into letting people die in a desert instead of their beds.

Alright, first of all the current Iraq expenditure is around 10 billion a month, not 13 a week.


I'm not arguing with you... you are arguing with the government.

I looked for further corroboration this morning, and found it - it wasn't hidden... it's right there in the morning's news.

Spending for the two wars is way over the 'budget' - we already knew this - that is why they keep having to push 'emergency appropriations'.

So - what is the real figure?

According to The Associated Press: "President Bush and Congress are headed toward another showdown on war spending, this time sparring over nearly $190 billion the Pentagon says is needed to keep combat in Iraq afloat for another year...

If approved, Congress would have appropriated more than $760 billion for the two wars, having already approved of $450 billion for Iraq and $127 billion for Afghanistan."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5750513


So - that's $450 billion already sent to Iraq.. plus another $190 billion. That's about $640 billion, right?

Does that equate to 10 billion a month? Or is it closer to $12 billion a week?


The bill allows families with incomes 200%-300% above the poverty line, to obtain health insurance, they are expanding health insurance to places where private health insurance is already active, thus increasing taxes for a service that is already more efficiently provided.


The people affected by this bill do NOT have health coverage. That's the whole point. So - it does NOT expand health insurance "to places where private health insurance is already active".


We'd either all be dead, or we would have terrorist attacks like in london, where we would have a subway or car bombing every other week.


If we didn't continue an occupation of Iraq (which wasn't involved in ANY way with any terrorist activity against us) we would 'all be dead'? Hysteria, much?

We would be having "a subway or car bombing every other week"... and that would make it "like in london"?

I'd really like to see your sources. I don't recall hearing that London was being hit by 52 bombings a year. I think you are peddling hysteria.

Sorry but after reading this something just doesn't add up for me. $12 billion a week works out to $624 billion, which is far more than $250 billion that all estimates give for our 2007 Iraq/Afghanistan spending budget. Am I missing something, or is Harry Ried drastically overdramatizing this.


It looks like Hal is about on the money, so to speak.

See this post ---> http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13086925&postcount=50

It looks like Hal is about on the money, so to speak.

See this post ---> http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13086925&postcount=50
I do believe that Harry Reid meant to say $12 Billion a month but even that is high.

Total spent so far = $425 Billion (Mar. 2003 to Sept. 2007 or 54 months total)
= $425/54 = $7.87 Billion per month or almost $2 Billion per week

Total requested for next year (2008) = $200 Billion for 12 months = $200/12 = $16.66 Billion per month or $3.84 Billion per week.

Certainly nowhere near $12 per week.

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

i try to keep those cynical thoughts away but i DO wonder what the real reason for the war was.

bush wanted to take out hussein well before 9/11. he used the attacks as a means of whipping up enough fear in the public to believe that iraq had some plan to attack us. we were scared enough to believe it.

but did "cheney" use BUSH'S hatred of hussein to push the whole plan for an entirely different motive? (i put cheney in quotes because i dont know that it was cheney or someone else) it would have been easy enough to do. cheney could have thought that the iraqi oil fields were easy pickings. he could have wanted more profits for his friends by starting a new war. he could have had the "patriotic" motive of preventing hussein from moving oil to a euro price instead of a dollar price. it could be some other unrevealed motive.

id like to know. it wont help us get out but it would be nice to know what our people and the iraqi people have really been dying for.
It would be nice to know. It would be even nicer to hold the bastards responsible accountable for their actions. As I mentioned earlier, war profiteering is a crime. It doesn't really matter who the next president is -- even if it is one of my favorites -- I will not be satisfied unless indictments are brought against members of this administration for their actions in regard to Iraq. I don't care how long it takes, I will not be satisfied until I see them in court, in orange jumpsuits.

Shouldn't 'the party of fiscal responsibility' be a little more.. .I don't know.. fiscally responsible?

Yeah, that would seem the case, wouldn't it?

The real cost of Iraq is going to come when another president asks Congress to go to war. Never again will Congress or any ally trust the word of a president. Next time that delay might be fatal.

If we didn't continue an occupation of Iraq (which wasn't involved in ANY way with any terrorist activity against us) we would 'all be dead'? Hysteria, much?

James is definately driving hysteria with this view.

But that leads me to pose a question. Since the United States wrongfully attacked Iraq, and completely destroyed its sovereign government. Whom is responsible for the state of affairs in Iraq? Also should the US remove all of its troops from Iraq immediately? If not, what kind of time table should be set?

I know that this is a hot button issue for some, but see nothing wrong with a little discussion on the issue.

James is definately driving hysteria with this view.

But that leads me to pose a question. Since the United States wrongfully attacked Iraq, and completely destroyed its sovereign government. Whom is responsible for the state of affairs in Iraq? Also should the US remove all of its troops from Iraq immediately? If not, what kind of time table should be set?

I know that this is a hot button issue for some, but see nothing wrong with a little discussion on the issue.

you should probably start a new thread asking this question. too many people who are "done" with this thread might be interested in the spin-off topic.

as far as im concerned the answer is either

1) when we (the us) have met our goals. (and we really should get around to deciding just what are goals ARE)

or

2) when the iraqi government formally asks us to leave.