Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War Could Cost $1 Trillion - Budget office sees effect on taxpayers for decade
Boston Globe ^ | 5/1/07

Posted on 08/05/2007 11:27:15 PM PDT by John Farson

WASHINGTON -- The war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over a trillion dollars -- at least double what has already been spent -- including the long-term costs of replacing damaged equipment, caring for wounded troops, and aiding the Iraqi government, according to a new government analysis.

[...] Some leading economists have predicted that, depending on how long troops remain in Iraq, the endeavor could reach several trillion dollars as a result of more "hidden" costs -- including recruiting expenses to replenish the ranks and the lifelong benefits the government pays to veterans.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last
To: John Farson

I wonder how much of this figure includes the “reconstruction” - which is partially due, not to our bombing and military action, but to Saddam’s ignoring infrastructure needs (like power plants & water treatment)?

I personally believe that the cost for Iraq’s reconstruction should come from IRAQ, not US taxpayers. Iraq is sitting on trillions of dollars in oil - this should go towards their own rebuilding and reconstruction - and to repay the American taxpayers for their rebuilding.

And no, I am not suggesting they pay us back for the military campaign against terror -


81 posted on 08/06/2007 5:04:36 AM PDT by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The 50-60 billion was referring to the initial effort to take over the country.

“We didn’t use overwhelming force or take decisive control of the country either.”

Sure we did. We bombed the heck outta them and overran every position they had.

And then we started prosecuting marines for shooting them.


82 posted on 08/06/2007 5:05:09 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: John Farson
This war has made Iran and China more powerful.

Iran is about to crumble from within, and the Great Satan's perch next door in Iraq was certainly not on the Mullah's wish list of things Allah could bequeath to them, prior to the Iraq invasion. China's emergence is a result of the embrace of a quasi-capitalist economic expansion, and has thus neutered its belligerent bent by making most of its potential enemies customers. Whatever they are, it is not because we took out Iraq.

Talabani has signed agreements to buy weapons and cooperate economically with China.

And why shouldn't they? The premise of the article you posted was that this war is too costly. I simply pointed out some possible positive outcomes. What you point out is not only not necessarily negative, but it is questionable that either assertion is a result of the Iraq war. Would having Saddam still in power make for a better world?

83 posted on 08/06/2007 5:07:23 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: John Farson

Not anymore... and neither are you... and you are wrong! Is harry reid a Conservative... you sound just like him, and those on the du and kos!

LLS


84 posted on 08/06/2007 5:08:50 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

“You all will recall President George W Bush’s saying shortly after the attacks of 9/11/2001, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.””

Comparing that statement to spending a trillion dollars in Iraq as equal binary choices is a false assumption.

We don’t have to spend a trillion dollars in Iraq. We could spend it in Afganistan or New York as alternative options.

Most of that money is spent in the US. It pays for trucks, armor, bullets, medical care, and salaries for the military.

Either you are a friend of America in this battle or you are against us. Remaining neutral means you want to business and take bribes from people like Saddam. Kinda like France, Germany and Russia did during the years prior to the current war.


85 posted on 08/06/2007 5:10:19 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: John Farson

And what would be the cost of another 9-11?????


86 posted on 08/06/2007 5:10:35 AM PDT by mathluv (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
We should have gone in with overwhelming force and seized control at the very beginning.

You know - that was what "Shock and Awe" was suppose to be... But in reality, there was very little shock, and pretty much no "awe". The resistance is far stronger now than the first few weeks of the war.

Foot - had we gone in with REAL power and authority, we would be simply finishing up the touches to the power grid, and be nearly ready to bring our last few troops home (other than those who would be setting up the permanent bases there).

But when you try to fight a PC war (no such thing), then you get bogged down. Add to that, we are trying to trust folks who have time and time again proven that they are not trustworthy....

87 posted on 08/06/2007 5:13:08 AM PDT by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

Good point on opportunity cost...if Opportunity Cost would be used in making decisions we would be much better off!
Should be applied to Welfare, War on Poverty, War on Drugs and all related Gov. programs and policies!


88 posted on 08/06/2007 5:15:15 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

“Worth every penny.”

Only if the Dems don’t get us out of there before the mission is finished. Otherwise Iraqi terrorism will be at least as big of a threat as it was before the war and we will have wasted money and lives. Not that they care.


89 posted on 08/06/2007 5:15:49 AM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mathluv

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.


90 posted on 08/06/2007 5:19:00 AM PDT by John Farson (Ron Paul for president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: John Farson

Have you ever heard of ‘Salmon Pak’? I guess you are one of those who believe that AQ was every where BUT Iraz.


91 posted on 08/06/2007 5:31:02 AM PDT by mathluv (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

I remember before the war there was an army general who said, we don’t solve problems, we overwhelm them. I wonder if he was fired.


92 posted on 08/06/2007 5:38:19 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: logician2u
We spend a half-trillion or so teaching people such as Porterville how to spell and punctuate sentences.

Why would you make an out-of-the blue, insulting comment like this? Incredible.

93 posted on 08/06/2007 5:48:26 AM PDT by Zechariah11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: John Farson

What’s the cost of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?


94 posted on 08/06/2007 5:53:17 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Our first responsibility is to keep the power of the Presidency out of the hands of the Clintons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Farson

F’ing morons at the Globe. The report was for both Iraq and Afghanistan.


95 posted on 08/06/2007 6:13:41 AM PDT by Dilbert56 (Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

“Worth every penny.”

Waste of taxpayer money.

We should have used neutron bombs to kill all inhabitants then secured the oil fields. It would have been quicker, more humane and best of all cheaper. We’d be on our way back to $2.00 per gallon gas instead of pissing billions and billions of taxpayers money rebuilding a country for a bunch of unappreciative whining cavemen.


96 posted on 08/06/2007 6:16:34 AM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
Your soul is free.

Kneel in submission now before it's too late.


97 posted on 08/06/2007 6:17:18 AM PDT by expatguy (Support - "An American Expat in Southeast Asia")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

Okay Cletus... we know you passed a class in appliance repair... your a scholar Cletus... your a scholar.


98 posted on 08/06/2007 8:15:29 AM PDT by Porterville (I'm an American. If you hate Americans, I hope our enemies destroy you. I will pray for my soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

“Does that mean anyone who opposes Bush’s domestic surveillance programs, his undeclared war against Iraq, his imprisonment of American and foreign terrorism suspects without charges, or his administration’s bungled immigration proposals is siding with the terrorists? “

Yes and delusional.... black helicopters bugging you? At least you can spell “T-I-N F-O-I-L”


99 posted on 08/06/2007 8:17:29 AM PDT by Porterville (I'm an American. If you hate Americans, I hope our enemies destroy you. I will pray for my soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: John Farson

I presume you are referring to the monitoring of calls into the USA from known or suspected terrorists and calls outbound from the USA to known or suspected terrorists?

You do know that the rewrite of the FISA that specifically ALLOWS for warrantless surveillance was passed just two days ago on August 4th that Wikipedia (not exactly conservative friendly) describes as follows:

“...the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor phone calls and other communication originating from parties outside the U.S. with known or suspected links to al Qaeda, even if the terminus of that communication lies within the U.S...”

The Libs, who are practicing politics with this issue, screamed in outrage to the media at the horrible, terrible DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM! Then they went and approved the rewrite to allow for warrantless wiretapping if the above conditions are met. The Donks took part in the legislative process and approved (along with the Republicans) the legislation with zero fanfare. There was very little media coverage of their change of heart or lack of outrage at its passing.

Now, John Farson, why do you suppose that is? Could it be that it is the RIGHT thing to do and may actually SAVE lives and PREVENT terrorist attacks?


100 posted on 08/06/2007 10:17:13 AM PDT by rlmorel (Liberals: If the Truth would help them, they would use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson