U.S. economy could fall casualty to wars

[SumSam]

Authors: U.S. economy could fall casualty to wars (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/10/iraq.costs.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch)

The numbers are mind numbing even if you consider they're padded up a bit.

(AP) -- The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show.

In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

Beyond 2008, working with "best-case" and "realistic-moderate" scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion -- or more -- by 2017.

Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say.

These numbers don't include the war's cost to the rest of the world. In Iraq itself, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion -- with its devastating air bombardments -- and the looting and arson that followed, severely damaged electricity and other utilities, the oil industry, countless factories, hospitals, schools and other underpinnings of an economy.

And this leaves me with one big question - exactly what are the benefits, if any, coming out of this war? Oh let me guess - we got rid of those legendary WMDs! What a relief!

:doh :doh

[Bernardd]

I met Ramadis who were so happy to have the Marines among them that they literally hugged and kissed them on the streets. Children made high-five signs when they saw Marines of the 3rd battalion 7th Marines on patrol and residents insisted they come in to drink chai and eat goats the hosts were willing to kill in their honor.

One resident grumbled the Marines of the 2nd battalion 5th Marines never stayed long enough after dinner. Iraqis are very hospitable and dinner can last several hours and long into the night.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58280

[SumSam]

Was it worth $ 12 billion a month? I could understand and totally support getting rid of a brutal dictator in a quick military campaign. Staying behind for nation building...not so much.

[Bernardd]

Was it worth $ 12 billion a month? I could understand and totally support getting rid of a brutal dictator in a quick military campaign. Staying behind for nation building...not so much.

I don't know if it's worth it. I'm also not sure how the cost breaks down. For instance, we have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq. Whether they're in Iraq or in Texas, they still have to be paid. (Is this money included in the $12 billion?). They still have to be fed, hosued, etc. (are the costs included in the $12 billion?)

The article said something about having to give these VOLUNTEERS added bonuses to re-enlist. God FORBID! Pay our soldiers more money? Don't you think they've been underpaid since.....GEORGE WASHINGTON'S ERA?!

The article mentioned something about the cost to replace damagedvehicles etc. (Question: How many vehicles are we losing each month? I never hear a word about this.) Oh, the article did say that the $12 billion included the upgrade and maintenance of vehicles. (Of course, vehicles need to be upgraded and maintained everywhere) I wonder what the maintenance cost is at Ft. Hood.

$12 billion per month = $144 billion per year.
The military budget was already close to $500 billion per year. Thus, we've upped our defense spending by 25%.

Of course, when you look at the overall budget of $3trillion, our efforts in Iraq cost us about 2.5% of our budget. (and that still doesn't answer the question of how much we'd be spending anyway.)

This article is nonsense. Sure, the numbers are probably correct, but they're not interpretted whatsoever.

In the mean time, how much did it cost the U.S. to partol the Fly-ZOnes for over 10 years?
Furthermore, how much are we spending each year to have our troops in South Korea -- isn't that "war" over yet? No? Why aren't we screaming to get them home? Surely we're spending a fortune on them.

Oh yeah. Our Troops are "watching" North Korea and it's Nuke Missile threat. Hmmmmm....doesn't Iraq have a neighbor that fits a similiar description?

So confusing...we spend 2.5% of our budget on something and we act like it's the end of the economic world for us. I have to wonder....maybe we should cut some govt programs (like the Dept of Education and HUD) and use that money to pay our soldiers a little better.

[lyngraphics]

So confusing...we spend 2.5% of our budget on something and we act like it's the end of the economic world for us. I have to wonder....maybe we should cut some govt programs (like the Dept of Education and HUD) and use that money to pay our soldiers a little better.

:thumb Sounds good to me!!

[Biblenuggetlady]

I don't know if it's worth it. I'm also not sure how the cost breaks down. For instance, we have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq. Whether they're in Iraq or in Texas, they still have to be paid. (Is this money included in the $12 billion?). They still have to be fed, hosued, etc. (are the costs included in the $12 billion?)

The article said something about having to give these VOLUNTEERS added bonuses to re-enlist. God FORBID! Pay our soldiers more money? Don't you think they've been underpaid since.....GEORGE WASHINGTON'S ERA?!

The article mentioned something about the cost to replace damagedvehicles etc. (Question: How many vehicles are we losing each month? I never hear a word about this.) Oh, the article did say that the $12 billion included the upgrade and maintenance of vehicles. (Of course, vehicles need to be upgraded and maintained everywhere) I wonder what the maintenance cost is at Ft. Hood.

$12 billion per month = $144 billion per year.
The military budget was already close to $500 billion per year. Thus, we've upped our defense spending by 25%.

Of course, when you look at the overall budget of $3trillion, our efforts in Iraq cost us about 2.5% of our budget. (and that still doesn't answer the question of how much we'd be spending anyway.)

This article is nonsense. Sure, the numbers are probably correct, but they're not interpretted whatsoever.

In the mean time, how much did it cost the U.S. to partol the Fly-ZOnes for over 10 years?
Furthermore, how much are we spending each year to have our troops in South Korea -- isn't that "war" over yet? No? Why aren't we screaming to get them home? Surely we're spending a fortune on them.

Oh yeah. Our Troops are "watching" North Korea and it's Nuke Missile threat. Hmmmmm....doesn't Iraq have a neighbor that fits a similiar description?

So confusing...we spend 2.5% of our budget on something and we act like it's the end of the economic world for us. I have to wonder....maybe we should cut some govt programs (like the Dept of Education and HUD) and use that money to pay our soldiers a little better.

:thumb Well said!!! What would the cost be later, had Saddam been left in power? Not only in $ but the lives of those he brutally tortured and killed, not to mention what his sons did. What about the terrorists he financially supported and bounties he paid to suicide bombers families for blowing themselves up in Israel. When was the last bus bombing? :thinking

[SumSam]

It seems I jumped to some hasty conclusions there. Those big huge numbers tend to jump at one from the screen.

I wonder how many other readers will do any more than a quick superficial analysis, like I did.

Estimating all economic and social costs might push the U.S. war bill up toward $5 trillion by 2017, they say.

Their book already figures in the stay-or-leave debate over Iraq.

Someone should come out with an article / book countering this book, I guess.

[jordanUK]

I don't know if it's worth it. I'm also not sure how the cost breaks down. For instance, we have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq. Whether they're in Iraq or in Texas, they still have to be paid. (Is this money included in the $12 billion?). They still have to be fed, hosued, etc. (are the costs included in the $12 billion?)


The issue is most of these soldiers are reserves; they aren't paid if they're at home. And the $12 billion is $12 billion EXTRA, normally soldier pay would be part of the standard budget, but Bush keeps asking for $180+ billion extra that's not in the budget. The US is having to borrow this money from somewhere.

[Nova]

I always thought we should have made Iraq pay for the cost of the war & rebuilding.

[Bernardd]

The issue is most of these soldiers are reserves; they aren't paid if they're at home. And the $12 billion is $12 billion EXTRA, normally soldier pay would be part of the standard budget, but Bush keeps asking for $180+ billion extra that's not in the budget. The US is having to borrow this money from somewhere.
MOst are reserves? How many? How many are active duty?