PDA

View Full Version : Iraq tops $1Billion per week



ljb5
09-22-2004, 12:41 PM
From Reuters (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040922/us_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc_7&printer=1)

Another flip-flop for Bush.

The Pentagon is tapping into a $25 Billion dollar contingency fund, "despite the White House's initial insistence that it had enough money."


The White House had initially asserted it would not need additional war funding until January or February, 2005.And how is that reconstruction effort going?


The decision follows last week's announcement that President Bush plans to divert nearly $3.5 billion from Iraqi water, power and other reconstruction projects to improve security.For those with short memories,;


Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor," and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz even assured Congress: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."Sounds like everything is going exactly as planned. No need to admit any mistakes. No need to change course. Just throw more money at the problem and lie to the American taxpayers about how much it will cost.

LeeG
09-22-2004, 12:56 PM
ljb,, the facts speak for themselves.
There are a few ratios I find interesting. The cost of the war so far is around 140Billion,,before the $25Billion you mention.

To date somewhere around $1.5Billion has been spent on reconstruction.

Approx 1% of the cost of war has gone to reconstruction.

If one recalls the "no nation-building" platform of the 2000 Republican election there's consistancy.

If one were to add up these military costs for bringing democracy to the middle east and shifted it to the price of a gallon of gas I wonder where the number would be?

My vote is to split the difference,,more nation building, less war, and raise the price of gas $.50/gal. That should put more money in nation building, reduce the deficit, and reduce gas consumption to stimulate a domestic energy policy that isn't oriented to getting the cheapest oil everywhere necessitating guises like democratizing islamic countries against their will.

ljb5
09-22-2004, 01:11 PM
There are about a million good was to do it. But all of them start with being honest with the American people.

</font> What are the goals?</font> How much will it cost?</font> How will we know when they've been accomplished?</font>This continual process of redefining the objectives, methods and costs erodes our confidence and our credibility.

LeeG
09-22-2004, 01:35 PM
Seems to me that GW has risen to the level of his incompetence. Maybe he'll do better out of office like Carter?

Keith Wilson
09-22-2004, 02:18 PM
Maybe he'll do better out of office like Carter? I wouldn't bet on it.

ljb5
09-22-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
Maybe he'll do better out of office.It'd be hard to do worse.

George.
09-22-2004, 04:37 PM
For another 250 million a week - a modest 25% increase - you could pay every Iraqi man, woman, and child 40 dollars a month - a fortune per family in their current situation. Call it "reconstruction assistance." That kind of cash injection would get the Iraqi economy immediately into high gear, alleviate the worst of the post-war misery, and buy you all the friends you ever wanted. Throw in another 50 million or so a week for the ten thousand most powerful sheiks and tribal leaders - realpolitik, you know - and you might even have them throwing flowers at you in the streets.

Oh, wait, that wouldn't work. Halliburton wouldn't get a cut...

ljb5
09-22-2004, 05:19 PM
Sounds too much like socialism. Probably safer to bomb them all.

George.
09-22-2004, 05:21 PM
It ain't socialism, it's bribery - works much better. ;)

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 05:52 PM
Can I ask a simple question? How easily can the United States afford this war if it should continue at roughly this funding level for say... another 100 weeks?

brad9798
09-22-2004, 05:58 PM
Hell, and I only made 35,918 this week ...

Well, 17,959 after taxes ... oh well.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 06:09 PM
I appreciate that, but what kind of fiscal impact will another 100 billion on this war have? Little or none?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 07:00 PM
With the rate of spending in Iraq already at more than $1 billion a week, the Pentagon may not have enough money to "get past Christmas," let alone wait until February, said John Pike, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. He said the White House could need closer to $75 billion next year.

I have no way of knowing whether this is BS or not, but spending estimates have said that 120 billion has already been spent.

Elmer Jenkins
09-22-2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by brad9798:
Hell, and I only made 35,918 this week ...

Well, 17,959 after taxes ... oh well.Folks like this guy here ought to have plenty to give to help foot the bill. I'm sure he won't mind a bit too.

Afterall, this is a war for the wealthy. The least they can do is pay for it.

[ 09-22-2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Elmer Jenkins ]

George.
09-22-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
About 5% of our GNP, but, of course, the "billion-a-week" figure is bogus, as you know.Really! Do tell us, how have you come to this conclusion?

LeeG
09-22-2004, 08:07 PM
costs of maintaining a standing military are contained within that $1Billion. So it's really a deal. Like if you go to the store and it says "Buy three and get the fourth one free!",,but you really only need one.
Still makes bringing democracy by occupation look mighty inefficient.
Imagine a fundraiser spending 99% of donations for operations before 1%makes it to the charity.

Donn,,any thought on how many of the 150,000 troops are walking/driving through Iraqi cities providing security on the street?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
09-22-2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by brad9798:
Hell, and I only made 35,918 this week ...

Well, 17,959 after taxes ... oh well. Wow...! Good for you. smile.gif

ljb5
09-22-2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
costs of maintaining a standing military are contained within that $1Billion.No they aren't. The Iraq war is a separate line-item on the budget.

Actually, it wasn't included in the original fiscal year budget, which did include the costs of maintaining a standing army. A supplemental bill covered the Iraq war.

LeeG
09-22-2004, 10:31 PM
well darn,,you mean this is real money? So what the heck is donn talking about?

TimH
09-23-2004, 01:26 AM
They should make the Bush family pay for this. Ill bet the war would be over quick!

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-23-2004, 01:37 AM
Would it be discourteous to mention the shattering impact that the Vietnam war had on the US economy? Gold used to be US$33 per ounce, until then...

George.
09-23-2004, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
About 5% of our GNP, but, of course, the "billion-a-week" figure is bogus, as you know.So the billion-a-week figure is NOT bogus.

5% of GNP. Enough to get a 3rd world country punished by the IMF for fiscal irresponsibility.

So, what'll it be? Inflation, tax increases, or both?

George.
09-23-2004, 05:26 AM
What's your point, Donn? I have seen this figure reported several times in the media, and never contested. Others on the bilge are confirming it You are contesting it. On what basis? What is the correct figure?

LeeG
09-23-2004, 05:38 AM
maybe it's an opinion.

George.
09-23-2004, 05:56 AM
Not a sound argument, Donn. These figures are widely accepted. On what basis do you contest them? Have you seen alternative figures cited somewhere?

Or is it just a case of "I neither agree nor disagree, much the opposite..."

Nightmoves
09-23-2004, 06:04 AM
I don't care how much we spend on military. It keeps the liberals/socialists in check, and that's a good thing. (here and overseas :D )

George.
09-23-2004, 06:21 AM
Did you check under your bed, Stan? They are everywhere!

LeeG
09-23-2004, 06:30 AM
well dang diggity donn,,you mean a numerical figure can change according to the perspective of the user. Sounds like we've gone quantum. Maybe you should get some liberal portforolio managers to boost the performance of your investments.

George.
09-23-2004, 06:49 AM
Of course the dollar is down 30%, so in real terms you are just treading water...

LeeG
09-23-2004, 06:52 AM
not good,,,better get a conservative on it !

[ 09-23-2004, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

imported_Dutch
09-23-2004, 11:25 AM
http://costofwar.com/embed-slow.html web page (http://costofwar.com/embed-slow.html)

ljb5
09-23-2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
My point is that I don't buy 'talking-point' statistics presented by obviously biased media sources. The real number could be higher or lower, but I'm quite sure we don't measure it by the week. Apart from political impact, there is no good reason to do so.Reuters is obviously biased, but Donn isn't!

Donn, the numbers come from the GAO, Congress, the Pentagon and the White House. You see above where it says that Bush announced the decision to divert money from rebuilding? (Bush is the president. He lives in the White House.)

George.
09-23-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by ljb5:
... the numbers come from the GAO, Congress, the Pentagon and the White House. You see above where it says that Bush announced the decision to divert money from rebuilding? (Bush is the president. He lives in the White House.)Bush? Come on, man, that's a biased source! :D