|
Iraq War to Cost $1-2 Trillion. Republicans Gleeful With Their Spending Prowess
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
Iraq war may cost US trillions
10/01/2006 10:49 - (SA)
Washington - The Iraq war will likely cost the United States anywhere between one and two trillion dollars, despite earlier assurances by the White House that these expenses will be manageable, reveals a new study co-authored by a Nobel Prize winning economist.
The research made public on Monday by Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, a 2001 Nobel Prize laureate and former chief economist at the World Bank, and economy professor Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, argued current official assessments of the war cost fail to consider key expenses likely to dog the US budget for years to come.
They included rising medical expenses to treat more than 16 000 wounded soldiers, accelerated depreciation of military hardware on the battlefield and the ripple effect on higher oil prices on the US economy, which in part could be blamed on the military venture.
Degree of confidence
Stiglitz and Bilmes wrote: "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are. We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."
Lawrence Lindsey, a former chief White House economist, suggested in the run-up to the war that its costs could probably reach $200bn.
However, other administration officials immediately dismissed the number as a gross overestimation.
Throughout the study, the authors provided "conservative" and "moderate" estimates of expenses incurred by American society since the start of the war in March 2003.
Moderate assessment
According to a "conservative" assessment, the war would cost Americans at least $1.026. Under a "moderate" assessment, the expenses would top $1.854.
According to congressional officials, the US had already spent $251bn in cash on combat operations in Iraq since the invasion was launched, and continued to fund operations there at about six billion dollars a month.
However, argue the economists, these figures failed to take into consideration disability payments to veterans over the course of their lifetime, the cost of replacing military equipment and munitions.
Recruitment bonuses
In addition, the cost of recruiting new soldiers had gone up dramatically, with the Pentagon paying recruitment bonuses of up to $40 000 for new enlistees and special bonuses and other benefits of up to $150 000 for current troops that re-enlist.
The authors pointed out: "Another cost to the government is the interest on the money that it has borrowed to finance the war."
They estimated that direct budgetary costs of the Iraq war to the US taxpayer would be in the range of $750bn to $1.1 trillion, assuming that the administration of President George W Bush would begin to withdraw troops in 2006 and maintained a diminishing presence in Iraq for the next five years.
The study warned that there were also economic costs likely to stretch out for years.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/...1860611,00.html
|
Other uses for $2 trillion? Well we could have given each Iraqi $76,000 and asked them to simply live elsewhere. Conversely we could have given $6,750 to every man, woman, and child in the US. Or, we could have given back $15,232 to each taxpayer. But that wouldn’t be fair, because the poor pay less in taxes right? So I broke it out by income, tax rate, and how many people are in each tax bracket. Depending upon how much they make, every taxpayer would get back:
If you make -- You would get
$1-$10,000 = $432
$10,000-$20,000 = $1,759
$20,000-$30,000 = $4,171
$30,000-$50,000 = $7,900
$50,000-$100,000 = $18,600
$100,000+ = $115,800
Are you satisfied with your investment? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Other uses for $2 trillion? Well we could have given each Iraqi $76,000 and asked them to simply live elsewhere. Conversely we could have given $6,750 to every man, woman, and child in the US. Or, we could have given back $15,232 to each taxpayer. But that wouldn’t be fair, because the poor pay less in taxes right? So I broke it out by income, tax rate, and how many people are in each tax bracket. Depending upon how much they make, every taxpayer would get back:
If you make -- You would get
$1-$10,000 = $432
$10,000-$20,000 = $1,759
$20,000-$30,000 = $4,171
$30,000-$50,000 = $7,900
$50,000-$100,000 = $18,600
$100,000+ = $115,800
Are you satisfied with your investment? |
Occ, I grow weary of these liberal arguments which, in effect, bolster the terrorists and weaken the morale of our troops fighting in that war.
Why do you hate America so much? |
|
|
| Renegade |
Hey, look at the bright side guys. At least the money isn't going to single mothers, the unemployed, the disabled, or to any other of these ludicriously undeserving welfare recipients. That sure helps the small-government fiscal-conservative in me to be able to sleep at night.  |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Other uses for $2 trillion? Well we could have given each Iraqi $76,000 and asked them to simply live elsewhere. Conversely we could have given $6,750 to every man, woman, and child in the US. Or, we could have given back $15,232 to each taxpayer. But that wouldn’t be fair, because the poor pay less in taxes right? So I broke it out by income, tax rate, and how many people are in each tax bracket. Depending upon how much they make, every taxpayer would get back:
If you make -- You would get
$1-$10,000 = $432
$10,000-$20,000 = $1,759
$20,000-$30,000 = $4,171
$30,000-$50,000 = $7,900
$50,000-$100,000 = $18,600
$100,000+ = $115,800
Are you satisfied with your investment? |
Look at it this way: There's an estimated 1000 Al-Quade members in Iraq now, and about 18000 worldwide. Let's just assume that 2000 of all of these have joined since the invasion. Then the cost of each new terrorist is only $1 billion, which comes to less than $5 for each US citizen. A new terrorist for less than $5! How's that for a deal? And it's even based on optimistic estimates. |
|
|
| Purple |
| Hey look at the brighter side, it is an investment by US which secure its all future oil supply needs. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Glad I just threw away $100K+ on this war!
However, and only to play Devil's Advocate here...summing it up and presenting it like you have...doesn't that analysis seem to be a bit short-sighted? The numbers may not lie, but they need context. This war will *hopefully* generate long-term benefits (tangible and intangible) that will hopefully dwarf the fiscal costs in the long-run.
Wishful thinking, maybe. Just pointing it out.;)
Now where's my check?! |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Conflict Cost in $ Billions
(1990s Dollars)
The Revolution (1775-1783) 1.2
War of 1812 (1812-1815) 0.7
Mexican War (1846-1848) 1.1
Civil War (1861-1865): Union 27.3
: Confederate 17.1
: Combined 44.4
Spanish American War (1898) 6.3
World War I (1917-1918) 196.5
World War II (1941-1945) 2,091.3
Korea (1950-1953) 263.9
Vietnam (1964-1972) 346.7
Gulf War (1990-1991) 61.1
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm |
Heres something to compare it to. If I'm reading the numbers correctly, this is the second most expensive war in US history next to WWII. Not far from being the most expensive. Not only that but we get a fundamentalist Islamic regime to show for it. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Heres something to compare it to. If I'm reading the numbers correctly, this is the second most expensive war in US history next to WWII. Not far from being the most expensive. Not only that but we get a fundamentalist Islamic regime to show for it. But America is safer! |
Given the huge amount of technology involved in this conflict vs. previous ones, I'm actually not that surprised. The trade off has come in far fewer U.S. casualties in exchange for more costly weaponry. I'm sure everyone can at least appreciate that trade-off. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Given the huge amount of technology involved in this conflict vs. previous ones, I'm actually not that surprised. The trade off has come in far fewer U.S. casualties in exchange for more costly weaponry. I'm sure everyone can at least appreciate that trade-off. |
Yes that goes without question but can hardly be used as justification in this instance. I'm sure you'll notice in any chart the trend of wars getting more expensive with fewer deaths.
Though you also have to take into account the value of money related to the time period. Back in 1945 2 trillion dollars was a LOT of ing money! Much moreso than it is today and that was a World War that spanned the entire globe. Its incredible that that we might actually surpass the cost of that war considering the amount of effort it took to get there.
Costlier technology or not 1-2 trillion for this war is ludicrous. It should not be that high. Especially considering the initial cost projections were in the low hundred billions. Look at Vietnam and the Gulf War. The Gulf War wasn't that far behind tehnologically and it only cost 61 billion. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Look at Vietnam and the Gulf War. The Gulf War wasn't that far behind tehnologically and it only cost 61 billion. |
The Gulf War was . Didn't it only last a day? Okay, maybe just a few months. But I get your point. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Yes that goes without question but can hardly be used as justification in this instance. I'm sure you'll notice in any chart the trend of wars getting more expensive with fewer deaths.
Though you also have to take into account the value of money related to the time period. Back in 1945 2 trillion dollars was a LOT of ing money! Much moreso than it is today and that was a World War that spanned the entire globe. Its incredible that that we might actually surpass the cost of that war considering the amount of effort it took to get there.
Costlier technology or not 1-2 trillion for this war is ludicrous. It should not be that high. Especially considering the initial cost projections were in the low hundred billions. Look at Vietnam and the Gulf War. The Gulf War wasn't that far behind tehnologically and it only cost 61 billion. |
The figures _are_ all in 1990s dollars. So WW2 costed just over 2 trillion $ in _1990s dollars_. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Glad I just threw away $100K+ on this war!
However, and only to play Devil's Advocate here...summing it up and presenting it like you have...doesn't that analysis seem to be a bit short-sighted? The numbers may not lie, but they need context. This war will *hopefully* generate long-term benefits (tangible and intangible) that will hopefully dwarf the fiscal costs in the long-run.
Wishful thinking, maybe. Just pointing it out.;)
Now where's my check?! |
Hehe, hopefully being the key word here :) |
|
|
|
|
