War could cost $1.6 trillion by 2009

[Kizzume]

www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.

SNIP

That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs the White House requested so far from Congress, the Democratic-led Joint Economic Committee said.

The committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan.

The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.

SNIP

"For every dollar we spend directly in Iraq, we're going to pay another dollar for the indirect, but immediate, costs of the war," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said. "We of the baby boom generation and our children and grandchildren will be paying for this war for a very long time to come."

"We cannot afford this war -- $12 billion dollars a month?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said. "We just can't. We can't continue."

Doesn't this seem like the most expensive mistake ever?

[debateman]

Well... Social Security comes to mind. As does a HUGE nuclear stockpile (thanks Reagan).

[jq]

debateman said:

Well... Social Security comes to mind. As does a HUGE nuclear stockpile (thanks Reagan).

Yeah this sucks. What sucks worse is that the candidates running for political office, especially on the right, keep talking about "liberal pork barrel spending, like health care" as if they have any right to talk about fiscal responsiblity when they voted for Bush twice and approved of his war. Talk about hypocrisy!



Kizzume said:
Doesn't this seem like the most expensive mistake ever?

On the bright side our money just keeps inflating and losing it's value, so in reality, we can argue that we aren't losing $1.6 trillion, but by the time our money is done inflating, it will be the equivalent of like 400,000,000 euros. Obviously, I am being sarcastic. Inflation sucks, and so does this fiscal nightmare.

[chuq]

Repubs are demanding a retraction of the report.


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican lawmakers on Wednesday demanded the retraction of a Democratic party report which warned that the costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars could reach 3.5 trillion dollars.

They warned the survey by Democratic staffers on Congress's Joint Economic Committee (JEC) was riddled with errors and should not be allowed to stand.

"In the rush to score political points, apparently no one bothered to fact check the report," said Senator Sam Brownback and Representative Jim Saxton, top Republicans on the committee, in a statement.


LINK

[Kizzume]

Here's a key quote from that article

Hidden outlays would also inflate the price to the 3.5 trillion dollar mark by 2017, they warned, basing the figure on the cost of treating wounded veterans, the Iraq war's impact on oil prices and other economic factors.

I sure wish I knew what those other economic factors were.

[jq]

kizzume said:

Here's a key quote from that article

Hidden outlays would also inflate the price to the 3.5 trillion dollar mark by 2017, they warned, basing the figure on the cost of treating wounded veterans, the Iraq war's impact on oil prices and other economic factors.

I sure wish I knew what those other economic factors were.

lol, no kidding.

[redstaterebel]

Hey Kizz - nice site. Thanks for letting me join.

Anyway - this report was by a handful of democrats looking to make the news.

I'm wondering what is the point of this "estimate"?

Is the point to finally use their congressional budget authority to shut it down? OR - just to stir the pot for the upcoming election year.

Anyone know what their point is?

[jq]

redstaterebel said:

Hey Kizz - nice site. Thanks for letting me join.

Anyway - this report was by a handful of democrats looking to make the news.

I'm wondering what is the point of this "estimate"?

Is the point to finally use their congressional budget authority to shut it down? OR - just to stir the pot for the upcoming election year.

Anyone know what their point is?

I will agree that the motivation was probably sensationalist driven. Lets face it, the election season is going to get a whole lot nastier! However, having said that, and knowing how much we have already spent in Iraq, does it really sound that far fetched to you RSR? If I have my numbers correctly, we are already up to like 880 billion dollars in Iraq, right? I realize 1.6 is almost double that, but still, I think we should be terrified by the numbers we already have, partisanship aside.

[Kizzume]

I'll also agree that the motivation for the numbers are partisan and sensationalist, and I also agree that we should still be concerned about the numbers that have already accrued.

But their point is a scare tactic. It seems to work well.

[chuq]

kizzume said:

Here's a key quote from that article

Hidden outlays would also inflate the price to the 3.5 trillion dollar mark by 2017, they warned, basing the figure on the cost of treating wounded veterans, the Iraq war's impact on oil prices and other economic factors.

I sure wish I knew what those other economic factors were.

National debt also plays a part. And we know that ours is soaring.

[redstaterebel]

JQ - $800b sounds right if you include Afghanistan. I read a lot about $8billion per month for Iraq - 5 years worth is roughly $500b - but however we slice it, its a ton of money.
This "estimate" includes some bullshit though - the cost per family of $100 barrel oil for example. Oil prices are NOT about Iraq, its about China.

As far as the money goes - hopefully the Iraqi gov't will get those oil revenues going to assist - but its never been about the money for me. IF - and this is a big IF - if the cause is worthwhile, morally or security wise, I wouldn't worry about how much it costs.


Kizz - I think this is a political mistake by the democrats. They are putting this "estimate" out there, and then they are going to approve more spending for Iraq. I really think they are giving the GoP a gift by sharing responsibility. Can they really make a major case out of this next year - after funding the war for 2 years?

[Kizzume]

No, they can't make ANY sort of major case out of it next year. Not any sort of case that can hold any water anyway.

[redstaterebel]

I agree with Kizz - the can't campaign on stopping the war - AGAIN.

Can't dip from that well again. I'm honestly astonished that the democrats would squander this issue for 08.

06 was the first significant congressional victory for the democrats since 94 - this issue would have ensured a white house win next time.

I really don't get it.

The only answer is that they indeed think that they can use the same campaign as last time - I think the electorate won't buy it again.

[Kizzume]

I agree completely. They need to focus on other issues, and I don't believe they will.

[redstaterebel]

If they are giving up on the war (my belief is that they never intended of stopping it) - how about an energy bill? A climate change bill? An education bill?

Something ...................................... this crop passed a modest minimum wage increase and have renamed like 50 federal buildings. WTF?