Posted on 12/27/2007 7:27:57 PM PST by canuck_conservative
The latest estimate of the growing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worldwide battle against terrorism -- nearly $15 billion a month -- came last week from one of the Senate's leading proponents of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. "This cost of this war is approaching $15 billion a month, with the Army spending $4.2 billion of that every month," Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said in a little-noticed floor speech Dec. 18. His remarks came in support of adding $70 billion to the omnibus fiscal 2008 spending legislation to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, as well as counterterrorism activities, for the six months from Oct. 1, 2007, through March 31 of next year. While most of the public focus has been on the political fight over troop levels, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported this month that the Bush administration's request for the 2008 fiscal year of $189.3 billion for Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and worldwide counterterrorism activities was 20 percent higher than for fiscal 2007 and 60 percent higher than for fiscal 2006. Pentagon spokesmen would not comment last week on Stevens's figure but said their latest estimate for monthly spending for Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism was $11.7 billion as of Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2007.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You have an agenda to push Paul. Anyone can see that, including the blind. You are no conservative but you are a meddler. I could care less what you think of our GOP candidates they are ours not yours.
And anyone objective would have to conclude that you have a problem with a debate about spending - hence your stream of insults and false innuendo. Next time, try attacking the argument, not the speaker.
And if spurring debate is now called “meddling”, then I’m definitely a meddler. And proud of it!!
It is our tax money being spent to fight the global WOT, not yours. It is our 15 billion dollars, if that is accurate, not yours. It is OUR tax money, being spent to kill terrorists. Do not worry what we do with our tax money to protect our citizens. You are not an American and do not live in this country, so you have no right to tell us how we should spend our tax dollars to protect our citizens by taking the fight to the enemy.
EXCELLENT POINT!!!
When you compare the current situation to the way we were fighting millions of enemies on two fronts, today's expenditures become even more outrageous! If it was less than $5 trillion for WWII (heck, estimates go as low as $1.6 trillion, corrected for inflation), and Robert A. Sunshine's estimates are correct for the current deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will have spent about a third or more in Iraq/Afghanistan as we spent to send millions of Americans to defeat our advanced and numerous enemies in WWII.
I'm not complaining about the upgrades to equipment and giving our troops good pay and benefits and gear, but I'm suggesting that we have thrown away a lot of money to corruption, etc. Plus, it should be noted that Afghanistan isn't the drain -- Iraq is.
The costs to military families has been huge. The cost to our military recruitment has been dramatic. The costs per capita have been quite substantial.
Each American family probably would rather have $130/month than have us in Iraq (again, Afghanistan is minor compared to Iraq). Ask an average American if he'd rather have us in Iraq or get a check for $10,000 for his family, and I think most would choose the latter.
Of course, neoconsocialists who like the big-government approach would rather the Feds spend our money, but I, personally (as a conservative), think that it would have been better for the government to take $10,000 less per family. $1 trillion is a bit greater than the $50-$200 billion price tag we were told at the outset, and I think that the American people have every right to question the Administration's handling of the matter.
Frankly, I’m a bit confused. Last I heard, this was all a great “coalition” fighting terrorism, and not the “US going it alone”... hmmm, I guess the story has changed.
BTW, jrooney, that’s not all your money. Some of it is mine.
Ditto.
Gondring how is your day job door knocking for Paul going?
Complaining?
#45 - good post. Yes, I agree.
But I do have the right of free speech, and will use it to promote debate.
Believe it or not, I like the US. And I want it to survive and stay strong for the long-term. But there are a number of things that currently threaten that - including overspending - and should be debated. Blank cheques, with no accountability, are dangerous.
Never have knocked on a single door for Dr. Paul. Never have given a dime. Never have endorsed him. Don't know if I will vote for him.
But since I'm a conservative and favor the Constitution and small government, I can see why you'd think I'd be a supporter of his...and he does interest me.
How's your anti-conservative, big-government shilling going?
Posting through a time warp from Autumn of 2006?
At $180 billion every year, how long before the US goes effectively bankrupt?
See post 7 for a dose of reality.
And what goes it say about the enemy - yeah, those raghead camel-jockeys that we love to mock - that they can hold off what, 40,000 well-fed, well-armed, well-provisioned Western troops in Afghanistan?
It says what anyone with a brain already knew: Insurgencies take a long time to go down, but they almost always go down.
It’s been over 6 years now - and Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and al-Zarkawi STILL aren’t dead/captured. Why?!
Because only a moron would bother looking for those guys at the expense of resources to dismantle their networks. It’s been over 6 years now - and we haven't had another major attack on American soil. Why?!
1) How do you think we should capture Bin Laden and why do you think your strategy has not been implemented?
2) Do you think the US is fighting an effective war against Islamic extremism? If not, how would you do it? Again, why has your solution not been implemented?
3) The US military is generally the force that maintains the order of the global economy, without it there would likely be much less wealth in the world. Do you agree with this statement?
Tell me: What was the bill for the activities of the First Carrier Striking Force in December 1941, and how did it compare to our security outlays for the next four years?
Any guess how much we're spending now on Defense and the Iraq/Afghanistan appropriations as a percent of GDP?
I believe the term to use here is “Busted!”
Would you take your family for a vacation in Iraq?
When you can answer “yes” to that, Iraq can be considered a normal country.
We’re not there yet.
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.