Conflicts' costs may exceed $700 billion
 

[url=http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0507/25/A05-257768.htm:bbb31]Link to article...[/url:bbb31]


[quote:bbb31]
Conflicts' costs may exceed $700 billion


War in Iraq, Afghanistan saddles U.S. taxpayers with enormous debt, critics say; deficit spending blamed.


The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost taxpayers $314 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects additional expenses of perhaps $450 billion over the next 10 years.

That could make the combined campaigns, especially the war in Iraq, the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years, causing even some conservative experts to criticize the open-ended commitment to an elusive goal. The concern is that the soaring costs, given little weight before now, could play a growing role in U.S. strategic decisions because of the fiscal impact.

"Osama (bin Laden) doesn't have to win; he will just bleed us to death," said Michael Scheuer, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA who led the pursuit of bin Laden and recently retired after writing two books critical of the Clinton and Bush administrations. "He's well on his way to doing it."

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, has estimated that the Korean War cost about $430 billion and the Vietnam War cost about $600 billion, in current dollars. According to the latest estimates, the cost of the war in Iraq could exceed $700 billion.

Put simply, critics say, the war is not making the United States safer and is harming U.S. taxpayers by saddling them with an enormous debt burden, since the war is being financed with deficit spending.

One of the most vocal Republican critics has been Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who said the costs of the war -- many multiples greater than what the White House had estimated in 2003 -- are throwing U.S. fiscal priorities out of balance.

"It's dangerously irresponsible," Hagel said in February of the war spending.

Democrats have also raised concerns about the apparent lack of an exit strategy and the fast-rising costs, particularly since President Bush has chosen to pay for the war with special supplemental appropriations outside the normal budget process. [/quote:bbb31]

Bush's agenda = money out of ya'll pockets.

Well...have fun paying to have millions killed, many of them as innocent as you. You voted for the guy.

Tax cuts = more money in our pockets

millions of people killed = false
innocent = opinion

Tax cuts while a so called "war" is happening is ludicrous to me. Tax cuts while a so called "war on terror' is happening = bigger deficit which equals to later generations paying the bill.

ok, here's the idea behind it. With tax cuts, people have more money, that's more money to be taxed, so even though the taxed percentage is smaller, the actual value is also higher. Also, corporations expand when they get money and spend more money in attempts to gain more. All of this spending stimulates the economy.

So far, companies are hiring more people, indicating the foreseen expansion, and the employment rate is going down. Also, the GDP has been growing for a very long time which means that people are spending more money.

And its been working wonders so far.

I just said how the GDP has been on a tear for months... GDP is generally used as the economic meter for the nation.

Wow. A tear for months eh? What about the decline for years?

And what happens when the deficit catches up with you? Economy goes in the tank.

The decline is attributed to 9/11 and the ensuing fear of investment.

The deficit is the problem we need to figure out, but I think that considering the dive the economy started to take in 2001/02, I think we are doing pretty well.

http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajorit ... reo?rd=436

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

lol

[img]http://www.oldamericancentury.org/FASCISM_NOT_US.jpg[/img]

It worked somewhat during the depression.

absolutley. but it hasn't really worked recently.

GDP increasing steadily for many months...

is there an echo in here?

seems to be. you keep saying how the economy sucks, but it's growing.

Again, as I stated before, I was referring to the past 5 years, not just the past couple months.

it better be growing back, considering the fact that he wrecked it when he took office. how many differant ways can bush use 9/11 to cover his ass? economy, terrorism, homeland security? you name it, he uses 9/11 to push every shitty agenda he has.

how did he wreck it when he came into office?

He did. It's not like he's the only that has, either.

Ok, you've said he did, but tell me what he did to do it.

It's not just him. oOo:

so you don't know or you just don't want to tell me? or are you just buying into what everyone is saying? I just want to make sure cause you said something, and I want you to tell me your reasoning behind it if you have any.

I hope ninty will come soon and contribute to this discussion further

http://www.fightforthefuture.org/bushre ... h_jobs.cfm

interesting article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085481/

ok, now there is a good response.

That article says that Bush has lost this many jobs and that many jobs, but the fact is, by the end his first term, all of the jobs lost since the beginning of the term had been regained.

can you find a source?

i looked for a long time on economic statistics, but their really hard to find for some reason.

Washington Post.

I don't have the specific articles but we read each month's official jobs reviews in economic class throughout the year.

I also can't find the specific articles in the archive because WP makes you pay to search through archives I beleive but if you really want them I can figure something out.
I thought it was pretty big news though that the job numbers had rebounded before the term ended because they were trying to say that he was the first president to finish a term with fewer jobs than when he started right at election time but ended up not being able to put that on him because they rebounded to the preterm number by fall of 2004.

And you're right about economic statistics, I think they are hard to find because a lot of the articles are on news databases that change daily so the articles are either lost in archives or just forgotten about and removed since they aren't new.