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 ...
Time for the dancing girls to do their thing.
LOL!
On the way.....
Add to that the fact that this article is published in The Guardian and it is a near certainty that the bulk of the article is anti-American twaddle with no legitimate basis.
Did I miss anything?
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "A Tale of Three Scandals: Abramoff, Sharpton, and Clinton"
Ummmm .. I'm thinking it's because, not only did Clinton ignore the terrorists .. but he helped them
And just think .. if he hadn't done that .. it wouldn't be costing us so much
or letting us play ;0)
And as to why I introduced clinton, the article discussed the "cost" of Iraq to the US. I thought it was important to put it into perspective as to other actions of contemporary presidents. As ole' bill's presidency cost us plenty, I chose him.
I wouldn't be so quick. He was a Liberal, but I can't think of anything he did to transfer control of privately held industries over to government. It's not like people paid higher taxes and all of their health care, press, civic industrial complex etc... were all controled by the gov. That would be socialist.
Was he a lousy president?
Yes
Was he a liberal?
Yes
Why am I talking like Donald Rumsfeld?
I don't know.
Now THAT is a zot kittie! LOL
Did you see post 64? A classic.
You're talking about Carter, right???
True kitties toy with their prey for a painfully long time before a zot. Frankly this is a good thread!
yes
He was a socialist in his heart. All his talk and actions after his "presidency" PROVES that.
He was so inept he couldn't even GIVE the government away, as much as he tried.
bye
If you know differently, let me know. With new information i can make a new decision. That's why I am a conservative now.
lol
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.