The cost of war $

Willowwing · Post by **Willowwing** » April 19, 2003, 7:54 pm

I'm thinking more and more what is going to be cut to pay for the war. I watched a live feed of the national press conference and if what Tim Robbins says is true it really is very wrong. What he said was that a bill was passed or is being passed to cut Veterans benefits including health care as well as active duty health care benefits. Being a disable veteran myself I look at Bush as 2 faced saying how much he appreciates the troops and the job they are doing and those who fought before them. I think of the men and women who maybe injured to the point of having to be medically discharged. While they are in being told that they are loved but when they go to collect a pension or medical treatment from a war they were sent to. They are told "sorry". Reminds me of all the troops in Vietnam poisoned by agent orange my uncle being one of them and not getting anything. Deja Vu with the gulf war syndrome, thousands of troops with the same symptoms coming home and being told by doctors they have nothing. I'ts like being patted on the back one minute only to be held with that hand so you can be raped.

The other concern is where the hell is all the money coming from to fund the war when we can't even get education funding passed due to lack of funds. I sense a "oops forgot to tell ya about that X% raise in taxes" coming on. I guess one way to help pay for the war and the defecit(I can't spell) would be to legalize marijuana.

I'm also afraid that Iraq is just the first stop on the Bush funride to rid the world of evil. Anyone else feel any of this?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 19, 2003, 11:03 pm

Willow,

Whatever we spend on Iraq is a drop int he bucket compared to stabilizing the region and opening it to US trade.

Forget about next week, bud. This entire action was about twenty years from now.

Drakoslay123 · Post by **Drakoslay123** » April 20, 2003, 1:19 pm

Willowwing, though am not a soldier, I feel your pain.

Drakoslay

Braxter · Post by **Braxter** » April 20, 2003, 7:38 pm

The real question, Fallanthas, is whether what we spend in Iraq PLUS the cost of running the government is a drop in the bucket compared to openning the region to US trade.

But the current deficit aside, the cost of rebuilding and running Iraq is estimated to be $160 B per year for the next 10 years. That's hardly a drop in the bucket.

Although I agree that this is a worthwhile investment on the part of the US, the sociopolitical drawbacks might turn out to outweigh the economic gains. Only time will tell I guess.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 21, 2003, 10:06 am

Middle class will feel the financial strain of the Iraqi war worse than anyone, as usual. It's going to get ugly. No, I don't think it will be worth it in the long run either.

Our priorities are beyond fucked right now, and it's definately going to bite us in the ass. It's only a matter of time.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 21, 2003, 11:14 am

Ok Brax,

Put up 1.6 billion against revenues from, say, 15 million new customers over the next 20 years (a hugely understated number, but what the hell).

Now factor in costs eliminated by settling down a region the rest of the world has no choice but to do buisness with.

It ain't cheap, but saying the investment isn't worthwhile is hugely premature.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 21, 2003, 1:06 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Ok Brax,

Put up 1.6 billion against revenues from, say, 15 million new customers over the next 20 years (a hugely understated number, but what the hell).

Now factor in costs eliminated by settling down a region the rest of the world has no choice but to do buisness with.

It ain't cheap, but saying the investment isn't worthwhile is hugely premature.

This is assuming it will "settle down", which I still strongly doubt. You're talking about drops in the bucket, the Iraqi war will probably end up being pretty close to that after it's all said and done.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 21, 2003, 1:21 pm

That is the unknown, Dregor.

Still, I would say having a country the size of the US fiscally tied to a conclusion makes said conclusion a lot more likely.

We will see.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 21, 2003, 5:53 pm

what country is the size of the us? didn't we already have the iraq population discussion?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 21, 2003, 11:03 pm

Oh, I don't know....

Maybe the US itself?

Reading Are Fundamental, dumbass.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 21, 2003, 11:22 pm

Sorry, your awkward sentence structure and cornpone poor communication skills confused me.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » April 22, 2003, 12:01 am

In the entire history of this country, every single time there has been a major war - taxes have been raised and aftwards the country has rebounded....and now Bush is planning on cutting taxes after a war that has already cost us 7 billion dollars per week for 3 weeks and will be ongoing for the next couple of weeks not to mention the billions we will be spending on rebuilding the damn place...cutting taxes is a mistake, slashing "bleeding heart liberal" programs is a mistake, and even the thought to consider taking money from social security is a mistake...

Willowwing · Post by **Willowwing** » April 22, 2003, 1:16 am

your point ? ...so I guess cutting medicaire, medicaid, social security, and Va pensions as well as active duty and veterans healthcare is the way to go then? What bleeding heart programs you talking about? Education, Aids research, Gun control? How bout we cut a huge waste of money.....The Homeland Security.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » April 22, 2003, 1:19 am

If you had actually read my post you would realize that I am in agreeance with you - cutting said "programs" is a BAD thing and I was naming them "bleeding heart liberal" programs to mock the conservative fucks in this country

Braxter · Post by **Braxter** » April 22, 2003, 5:53 am

Heh, if it were as cheap as $1.6 billion, then yeah, it would be a drop in the bucket. But the number I quoted was $160 B/year for 10 years. That's 1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS (imagine i said that like Dr. Evil to give it a more sinister ring) or about a quarter of the national debt. I personally think it'll cost less than half of this but I'm no Yale Economist.

It is impossible to tell at this point, because we have no idea how much of our budget we can actually pour into Iraq and how much we can expect to gain from their oil reserves. Regardless, the costs/gains ratio is going to be a whole hell of a lot closer than you imagine.

Fallanthas wrote:Reading Are Fundamental, dumbass.

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » April 22, 2003, 9:05 am

That tax cut should have gone out the window the second this war started. You cannot cut taxes while looking down the gullet of a multibillion (trillion?) dollar war/rebuilding bill.

I don't want my taxes to go up, but that's tough shit for me. We cannot just keep tacking another trillion dollars onto the national debt every time we get a republican in office.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 22, 2003, 11:01 am

We cannot just keep tacking another trillion dollars onto the national debt every time we get a republican in office.

I think you have your parties mixed up.

I agree, it seems like a poor time for a tax cut. Hopefully the congress will get that message across to GW.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 22, 2003, 11:47 am

hum.. history repeats itself.. "Read my lips: No more taxes!"

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » April 22, 2003, 1:46 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
We cannot just keep tacking another trillion dollars onto the national debt every time we get a republican in office.
I think you have your parties mixed up.

Funny how the deficit balloon under Reagan & Bush, decreased under Clinton, and now its ballooning again...

But yeah I agree with most here that tax cuts right now are not the best idea, but according to his plan, half of the cuts (its changed a couple times so I may be wrong) apply to corporate dividends which is supposed to encourage companies to hire more. That means more happy working middle-class to pay taxes and increase revenue. Sounds a bit too utopian, but who knows.

Homeland Security should be eliminated along with the DEA, for starters, but that won't happen... Two pure examples of useless bureaucracies started by Republicans. See, Democrats aren't always to blame for governmental money-sinks.

cornpone, hehe

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 22, 2003, 2:12 pm

The GOP is always responsible for the worst spending sprees and deficit fuckups. Yet stupid people like Fallanthas, who's IQ has dropped even further from all that head-nodding during the Rush Limbaugh super fat moron power hour got it into their head that liberalism = bigger government = more spending even though it simply hasn't been the case in the united states since the early 1940s.

Every time there's a republican in the white house spending increases. Granted it just increases in military and corporate welfare, but the increases in those areas are generally so ridiculously high that the deficit goes into the bathtub.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 22, 2003, 3:41 pm

kyoukan wrote:...Rush Limbaugh super fat moron power hour...

kyoukan wrote:Every time there's a republican in the white house spending increases. Granted it just increases in military and corporate welfare, but the increases in those areas are generally so ridiculously high that the deficit goes into the bathtub.

The military bumps are usually only because the Democrat(s) that preceeded them cut spending to such a degree that they cannot properly maintain equpiment, and had to cannibalize units.

The corporate welfare I'll not dispute, it's my second biggest beef w/ my party.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 22, 2003, 3:59 pm

because the US has needed such a huge army to counteract the evil dirty socialist pigs that will fucking destroy capitalism and send all humanity to oblivion without the slightest regard for our sancrosanct western human rights!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 22, 2003, 4:22 pm

masteen wrote:The military bumps are usually only because the Democrat(s) that preceeded them cut spending to such a degree that they cannot properly maintain equpiment, and had to cannibalize units.

You can't be serious. Even with Clinton in the white house you spend more on military than like the next 10 countries combined.

Whoop dee fucking doo you can't maintain your oversized and bloated armed forces.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 22, 2003, 6:26 pm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/febru ... dget1.html

Financial smoke and mirrors. Sorry, you will have to come up with a better example of a democratic president reducing the national debt than this fooker cooking the books. Even with a huge increase in revenues due to an economy growing at a mad rate, he still managed to fuck us.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 22, 2003, 6:39 pm

Without the combined economic and military pressure we exert:
-India and Pakistan would be nuking each other, right now.
-North Korea would be doing a hell of a lot more than just sabre rattling.
-Taiwan would be a Chinese province.
-Kuwait would have been part of Iraq for 12 years, and Hussein would probably be invading Saudi Arabia to finalize his hold on the Mid East oil supply.
-The UN would be doing nothing other than pissing and moaning about all of this because noone would be able to enforce their little resolutions.

But I could be wrong. I mean if we disarmed, surely everyone else in the world would too. Then we could all sing campfire songs and eat cookies at the global lovefest that would result.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » April 22, 2003, 6:57 pm

Some graphs comparing Reagan & Clinton:

http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/graphs.htm

Most notable:

By the first year of Mr. Reagan's term the US has accumulated $994.8 billion in debt from all previous years. In just eight years Mr. Reagan increased the debt to $2.6 trillion or an increase of $1.6 trillion. This figure represents the largest accumulation of debt of any president in history and almost twice as much debt as all previous president combined.

Spending during both presidencies was about the same. Mr. Reagan increased spending by $386.3 billion while Mr. Clinton increased spending by $379.3 billion. However, Mr. Clinton was forced to spend far more money to finance the debt than Mr. Reagan. When Mr. Reagan began his term we were spending only $112 billion a year to finance the debt. In 2000, Mr. Clinton had to spend $225 billion. See Interest on the Debt. On the other hand, Mr. Reagan had the luxury of spending on whatever programs he wanted (since the deficits didn't really matter to him), including the biggest pork program in the government...the US military.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 22, 2003, 7:12 pm

Lalanae wrote:Some graphs comparing Reagan & Clinton:

When Mr. Reagan began his term we were spending only $112 billion a year to finance the debt. In 2000, Mr. Clinton had to spend $225 billion. See Interest on the Debt.

Biased statistics on a liberal slanted web-page. Big suprise.

Here are some hard numbers for you: 112 billion 1980 dollars, adjusted for inflation of 3% for 20 years, equals 203 billion 2000 dollars. So Clinton had to spend 10% more financing the deficit than Reagan did, and got to do it during the biggest boom our economy had ever seen. He was a fucking finanshal genious!

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 23, 2003, 3:15 am

Mast,

Read the link I provided. Clinton ran a budget deficit like every other president (although not as large as Reagans). He just found a way to cook the boooks and fuck up social security rather than admitting he was going in the red.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 23, 2003, 6:40 am

lol oh nos clinton cooked teh books!

you fucking simpleton.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 23, 2003, 10:21 am

Yes, using the surplus from social security to finanace the rest of the budget when it's well known social security is going to go in the red as the baby boomers retire is most definitely cooking the books.

Would you like to continue making an ass of yourself, or have you had enough?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 23, 2003, 10:31 am

A long time ago, Britain and France were at war. During one battle,
the French captured an English Major. Taking the Major to their
headquarters, the French General began to question him.

The French General asked, "Why do you English officers all wear red
coats? Don't you know the red material makes you easier targets
for us to shoot at?"

In his bland English way, the Major informed the general that the
reason English officers wear red coats is so that if they are shot, the
blood won't show and the men they are leading won't panic.

And that is why, from that day on, all French Army Officers wear
brown pants.