Poor Torie - here, maybe this will help.
Posted on 01/07/2006 6:48:17 PM PST by shuntos
The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.
The report came during one of the most deadly periods in Iraq since the invasion, with the US military yesterday revising upwards to 11 the number of its troops killed during a wave of insurgent attacks on Thursday. More than 130 civilians were also killed when suicide bombers struck Shia pilgrims in Karbala and a police recruiting station in Ramadi.
The paper on the real cost of the war, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, is likely to add to the pressure on the White House on the war. It also followed the revelation this week that the White House had scaled back ambitions to rebuild Iraq and did not intend to seek funds for reconstruction.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Just thrilled you could join us!!!
Not interested in my posts I see. My feeling are hurt.
If it really is a poor uninformed college kid, maybe we can nurture it? Can we keep it, please?
Shhhh... no one ping the mods.
It sure doesn't like direct questions, does it?
Only if we can send it to RE-EDUCATION camp!!! I doubt "nurturing" it would work.
It seems to be quite picky about that on which it chooses to feed, and I have been rejected as unsavory. I hate when that happens.
So, looks like my initial reservations about your motives by posting this here were correct.
You use the words "progressive news sources" --didn't you mean "liberal" news sources?
I almost don't think it's a troll. I believe we really could have ourselves an honest liberal (probably 19-20) who doesn't understand the animosity.
Only problem is that "longtime reader" comment. Only a troll would think like that.
America wastes more money ( thank Congress for that ) on utter garbage, that does less than nothing but pour money into the pockets of useless people, for their piddly "research", than you know, but you are "disappointed that we are spending money on the Iraq War war, which removed a foul butcher, who allowed al Qaeda TRAINING CAMPS to flourish in his country, while he not only killed his own people, starved the rest and played the bloody OIL FOR FOOD game with aplomb?
You are NOT a "long time lurker" here, unless you it was to post what you found reprehensible, back on DU.
When one considers the Nobel prize in economics, one must understand that these people think that Arthur Laffer's discovery of quadratic equations was earth-shatteringly profound.
Gee, and how much would it cost if two or three American cities disappeared in a nuclear blast? America is fighting this war so we don't have to do those kind of calculations.
Poor Torie - here, maybe this will help.
Me too -- and here it is. From this it appears the Clinton Admin. wasn't liberal enough for him so he's set off on his own (with a comfortable income from good ole Columbia U.) to make as much trouble for Bush as he can.
Joseph E. Stiglitz is especially well-known as a critic of the reigning international economic policies and the institutions that enforce them – the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United States Treasury Department. After a distinguished academic career on the faculty of MIT, Yale and Stanford, Stiglitz joined the Clinton administration in 1993 as member of the Council of Economic Advisors.
He later was named the Council’s Chairman. In 1997 he took the post of Senior Vice President and Chief Economist at the World Bank. Though a consummate political insider, Stiglitz grew increasingly disillusioned with the failures of neo-liberal policy and began to voice his thinking in public speeches. Increasingly outspoken, he eventually was ousted from his World Bank post, allegedly on orders from US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
Since leaving the bank, Stiglitz has sharpened his criticism further, making embarrassing revelations about the role of the IMF in the Russian loan scandal, among other things. In mid 2001, he joined faculty of Columbia University and on 10 October 2001, it was announced that he would be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science.
I am disappointed that such a great chunk of funds has been shoveled to such a dubious cause.
---
and I am disappointed that none of those who actually funded the attacks sustained the last few years on western civilization have not been forced to repay those so deeply affected, the dead in the WTC and the Pentagon, the african embassies, the Philippines, Bali, Madrid, Iraq.. for starters
talk about dubious causes that the terrorists have set down a path to support .
if we did nothing, you and many others would likely not survive when they had larger weapons of destruction with which to wage their war against all of us.
what would the cost be then?
would that distress you as much as your above statement about such a great chunk of funds shoveled to dubious causes?
you should have stopped when you were ahead.
No, I am the "honest liberal," (sort of, sometimes). That explains my longevity. Always engage, always answer fair questions, always put one's cards on the table, always explain. It works like a charm. LOL.
Well, it probably likes it's food, "red-meat" conservative whereas you are "pink" moderate. :-)
I think you have it! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.