US war costs up

[GrGr]

Link

U.S. war costs in Iraq up: report

By Richard Cowan

25/01/08 -- - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq war may not dominate U.S. news reports as the carnage drops, but a new report underscores the financial burden of persistent combat that is helping run up the government's credit card.

"Funding for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities in the war on terrorism expanded significantly in 2007," the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released on Wednesday.

War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote.

"It keeps going up, up and away," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said of the money spent in Iraq since U.S. troops invaded in 2003.

"We're seeing the war costs continue to spiral upward. It is the additional troops plus additional costs per troop plus the over-reliance on private contractors, which also explodes the costs," said Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who opposed the war.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Congress has written checks for $691 billion to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and such related activities as Iraq reconstruction, the CBO said.

There are around 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 27,000 in Afghanistan.

$11 BILLION A MONTH

Of the total, the CBO estimated that $440 billion had been spent on fighting in Iraq launched with the goal of ousting President Saddam Hussein from power and securing weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

All of the Iraq and Afghanistan war money -- about $11 billion a month -- is effectively being put on a government credit card at a time when U.S. government debt has skyrocketed to more than $9 trillion, up from around $5.6 trillion when Bush took office in January 2001.

Bush has opposed paying the cost of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan with tax increases or other specific offsets.

That means that nearly every penny spent gets added to the U.S. debt. The CBO estimated that just the interest payments on the debt would total $234 billion this year, more than the likely $250 billion budget deficit for the year.

These annual deficits and steep interest payments on borrowing all get rolled into the running tally that is the government's debt -- the more-than-$9-trillion figure.

The debt problem snowballs long-term, especially if the escalating costs of government-run health care and retirement programs are not reined in and if the United States maintains a large long-term military presence in Iraq.

Interest payments on the debt will total an estimated $2.7 trillion over the next decade, the CBO said.

Congress is expected to pass another round of money for the war in May or June, despite repeated attempts by Democrats to bring the fighting in Iraq to an end.

Republicans have defended the costs of the Iraq war, saying it has helped to stave off new attacks on the United States.

But Conrad said the deficit spending on the war was "another negative trend among many negative trends" in the budget.

A $ Billion here a $ Trillion there soon you are talking real money...

 

[bamacre]

But but we can't NOT afford it.

:roll:

 

[theeedude]

Thanks, GOP, for your wonderful "Leadership."
That's 40 bucks per every person per month on the Iraq debacle. Yes, we spend more on Iraq than on haircuts

 

[bamacre]

What do Osama bin Laden, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton all have in common?

Time to invest in astroglide.

 

[Pabster]

Let's be clear here, that figure is interest paid on the total debt, not just war spending.

 

[M0RPH]

In 2008 we will spend more than a TRILLION dollars on defense. And who are we fighting? Small groups of Al-Quaida fanatics? The guys whose main tactic is strapping bombs onto themselves and blowing themselves up?

 

[Craig234]

It's insanity to be increasing the debt hugely.

Is our political system so broken that the powerful will get their policies passed when the price is one our society can't afford? Are the only candidates who can get elected now ones who will not represent the public interest?

This is why I continue to say that we have no issue more important than getting big money out of our political system, because no other issue can get the right policy in place if the people being elected are serving the agendas of big donors. It's becoming a cliche, but it's true we are stealing from the children of the country.

The big lie I'll add to that is the right-wing claiming the mantle of the fiscal conservative and blaming liberal spending. The last year before Clinton the nation balanced the budget was at the height of the Great Society, in 1969, with even the hugely expensive Vietnam War going on too - but Republicans oppose the spending on our nation's average citizens even while running up the huge debt. Are people blind? I'd say they're blinded, by propagandists.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Let's be clear here, that figure is interest paid on the total debt, not just war spending.

lol @ Pabbie :laugh:

Let's be accurate, here ...

White House
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008
Page 72
Table 3.2?OUTLAYS BY FUNCTION AND SUBFUNCTION:
2008 Estimate
901 Interest on Treasury debt securities (gross)

$469,919,000,000

(That's $470 Billion)

The guv'mint subsequently 'pays' itself a couple hundred billion dollars 'on- and off-budget' in 'interest' ...

That's why of our collective $9.2 TRILLION in federal debt $4.1 trillion is declared ""Intragovernmental Holdings""

btw, Pabbie ... the GROSS INTEREST is projected to be over $550 BILLION a year by 2011 and continually rising thereafter ...

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's insanity to be increasing the debt hugely.

Is our political system so broken that the powerful will get their policies passed when the price is one our society can't afford?

We like to remind ourselves we are #1 in the world, but I don't see how we will keep #1-ing ourselves when our debt keep piling up. Our income dont' match our expense balance sheet.

The political system is part of the problem, but I see the American people to be a big part of it. We dont' live in dictatorship (yet!), we are the ones allow these politicians to do all these things running up debts. I think the we American people have a lot of blame on this, because our government represent us ultimately.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Once this war is gone and long forgotten we'll still be hamstrung by the costs of social programs in this country. Whining about the costs of this war is like exclaiming (In a big, booming voice.) -- "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

 

[techs]

So basically the Bush tax cuts are almost completely eaten up by the interest on the Bush deficit?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Once this war is gone and long forgotten we'll still be hamstrung by the costs of social programs in this country. Whining about the costs of this war is like exclaiming (In a big, booming voice.) -- "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

lol @ Chickie

No. Your Voodoo Economics of tax cuts, deficit spending and monumental Federal Debt priniciple and interest has ""hamstrung the US""

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Once this war is gone and long forgotten we'll still be hamstrung by the costs of social programs in this country. Whining about the costs of this war is like exclaiming (In a big, booming voice.) -- "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

lol @ Chickie

No. Your Voodoo Economics of tax cuts, deficit spending and monumental Federal Debt priniciple and interest has ""hamstrung the US""

Right. Because those are all brand new to the fiscal practices of this country and only began under GW Bush.

 

[shortylickens]

I often wonder what would happen if we dumped a billion a week into our schools.
God forbid our next generation will actually be competative with the Asians and Europeans.
Its a nice dream.

Then I realize it probably wont happen in my lifetime.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Once this war is gone and long forgotten we'll still be hamstrung by the costs of social programs in this country. Whining about the costs of this war is like exclaiming (In a big, booming voice.) -- "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

lol @ Chickie

No. Your Voodoo Economics of tax cuts, deficit spending and monumental Federal Debt priniciple and interest has ""hamstrung the US""

Right. Because those are all brand new to the fiscal practices of this country and only began under GW Bush.

That, of course, would be a lie, Chickie, with your sarcasm and deceit, disparagement and lack of acknowledgement of the economic success, balanced budgets and reduced Federal debt principle/interest under PayGo and the Clinton Administration.

Your hero, Commander Codpiece, will be forever known as W - The Worst regardless of your revisionist history and self-delusion.

So please continue to defend and deflect as that simply makes you less and less relevant

 

[CycloWizard]

Gee, who would have thought that the costs would have gone up when we sent more troops over? :roll: With genius observations like this, it's little wonder that we elect jackasses to virtually every office.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Once this war is gone and long forgotten we'll still be hamstrung by the costs of social programs in this country. Whining about the costs of this war is like exclaiming (In a big, booming voice.) -- "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

lol @ Chickie

No. Your Voodoo Economics of tax cuts, deficit spending and monumental Federal Debt priniciple and interest has ""hamstrung the US""

Right. Because those are all brand new to the fiscal practices of this country and only began under GW Bush.

Dubya is the worst of the worst when it comes to deficit spending, that's the point.

 

[Jeff7]

It's great that this war would never cost more than $20 billion, isn't it?
As I recall, someone was fired for daring to suggest that it might cost up to $200 billion. Lawrence Lindsey was the name.


Early estimates - $1-$4 billion a month for an occupation force.

Also interesting:

Some analysts have speculated that the proceeds from Iraqi oil sales could be used to offset the costs of reconstruction and occupation. However, Iraq is already a major exporter of oil and until recently has been producing at close to its peak sustainable production capacity of 2.8 million barrels a day (BPD).

Iraq was already exporting at near peak capacity, without using those profits to pay for a huge occupying force. (An amount of money that I'm sure they'd hand over to us willingly.)

Currently, about 80 percent of Iraq's oil production is being used to purchase imports under the United Nations Oil for Food Program or for domestic consumption. And, in the near term, Iraqi oil exports cannot be expanded without large-scale investment and development of infrastructure. Thus, the primary source of additional funds for reconstructing Iraq would be the proceeds from the legitimate sale of the approximately 400,000 BPD that are currently smuggled out of the country to pay for the importation of items that violate United Nations sanctions. Assuming that a postconflict Iraq complied with all U.N. resolutions and removed the basis for the current economic sanctions, and assuming also that its oil production infrastructure was undamaged, Iraq could pay for reconstruction costs by using funds generated from that 400,000 BPD of oil and still have enough to pay for its country's current level of imports. At today's oil prices, production at that level would amount to approximately $3 billion a year.

So it could pay off the debt at $3 billion a year. It is currently costing more than that in a month. Total cost thus far: $489 billion. So hey, if we pull out right now, and don't pay for any veteran's healthcare or anything else, they'll pay off the war in 163 years. Or with the estimated costs of $1-$2 trillion, that'd be anywhere from 333 to 667 years to pay it off, assuming that they don't magically septuple production in the next few years.


Link. "The American part of [reconstruction in Iraq] will be $1.7 billion."



Money for Iraq, money for this $300 rebate nonsense...the politicians just keep pulling money out of their asses. And people always say, "Put your money where your mouth is." I guess it's more proof that politicians really are just talking out of their asses.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Once this war is gone and long forgotten we'll still be hamstrung by the costs of social programs in this country. Whining about the costs of this war is like exclaiming (In a big, booming voice.) -- "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

lol @ Chickie

No. Your Voodoo Economics of tax cuts, deficit spending and monumental Federal Debt priniciple and interest has ""hamstrung the US""

Right. Because those are all brand new to the fiscal practices of this country and only began under GW Bush.

That, of course, would be a lie, Chickie, with your sarcasm and deceit, disparagement and lack of acknowledgement of the economic success, balanced budgets and reduced Federal debt principle/interest under PayGo and the Clinton Administration.

Your hero, Commander Codpiece, will be forever known as W - The Worst regardless of your revisionist history and self-delusion.

So please continue to defend and deflect as that simply makes you less and less relevant

Hey Chuckles. Perhaps you should do a little research on federal deficits in relation to GDP in the past and you wouldn't sound like such a fool.

And lauding Clinton for any economic success is like lauding Reagan for causing Halley's comet to appear. Of course the Clinton fluffers consistently confuse cause and efect, so it's no surprise.