Iraq War Will Cost 2 Trillion (with a "t") dollars.

[hardheadjarhead]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html


We're spending $4.5 billion a month, according to a Marine spokesperson.

Gee.



Regards,


Steve

 

[arnisador]

Ouch.

 

[Makalakumu]

For the price of one missile fired in the Iraqi war, my school district could run my school for a year...

 

[michaeledward]

Until when?

and then how much?

"Well, in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution, I do; this is it for the U.S. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges ... But the American part of this will be one-point-seven billion dollars. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

Uh, Oops.

Natsios, you're doing a heck of a job.

 

[Flying Crane]

Our presence in Iraq is costing American taxpayers over $1 billion a week.

 

[Makalakumu]

Meanwhile, the GOP is cutting taxes on the rich to shift the burden for paying for the war to the poor...the very same people who are already giving the lives of their sons and daughters.

 

[jdinca]

Meanwhile, the GOP is cutting taxes on the rich to shift the burden for paying for the war to the poor...the very same people who are already giving the lives of their sons and daughters.

A little food for thought, here's an excerpt from a New York Times article written in 2003:

A survey of the American military's endlessly compiled and analyzed demographics paints a picture of a fighting force that is anything but a cross section of America. With minorities overrepresented and the wealthy and the underclass essentially absent, with political conservatism ascendant in the officer corps and Northeasterners fading from the ranks, America's 1.4 million-strong military seems to resemble the makeup of a two-year commuter or trade school outside Birmingham or Biloxi far more than that of a ghetto or barrio or four-year university in Boston.
Today's servicemen and women may not be Ivy Leaguers, but in fact they are better educated than the population at large: reading scores are a full grade higher for enlisted personnel than for their civilian counterparts of the same age. While whites account for three of five soldiers, the military has become a powerful magnet for blacks, and black women in particular, who now outnumber white women in the Army.

Remember, this came from the NYT. Based on this, it's the middle class that makes up the lions share of the military, not the poor. Agree or disagree, this is in direct contradiction to your statement.

Here's another excerpt from a DoD article written in November of 2005:

On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class, Gilroy said. More recruits are drawn from the middle class and fewer are coming from poorer and wealthier families. Recruits from poorer families are actually underrepresented in the military, Gilroy said.
Other trends are that the number of recruits from wealthier families is increasing, and the number of recruits from suburban areas has increased. This also tracks that young men and women from the middle class are serving in the military.

That both the NYT and the DoD are in agreement here is significant.

In addition, your statement can be inferred as saying that taxes for the poor have gone up while taxes for the rich have gone down. More than that you're statement leads one to believe that this is being done intentionally to make poor people pay for the war. Neither case is true but tax burden is food for another thread.

 

[Makalakumu]

Remember, this came from the NYT. Based on this, it's the middle class that makes up the lions share of the military, not the poor. Agree or disagree, this is in direct contradiction to your statement.

That depends on your definition of poor. The middle class is so far beneath (in terms of income) the people who are sending our kids to war and cutting their own (and those who pay for their campaigns) taxes, that all of the middle class could be considered poor. The bottom line is that the percentage of difference between 19,500 dollars and 50,000 dollars is MUCH less then it is if 50,000 dollars and 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 dollars is compared.

In addition, your statement can be inferred as saying that taxes for the poor have gone up while taxes for the rich have gone down. More than that you're statement leads one to believe that this is being done intentionally to make poor people pay for the war. Neither case is true but tax burden is food for another thread.

If one cuts taxes deeply on the upper brackets, the percentage of of government payed for by the lower brackets goes up...especially considering that spending is not going down...but going up. This is clearly a shifting the tax burden away from the upper brackets. Thus, it is also clear that the GOP is sticking the lower brackets with the bills...the financial and the butchers.

 

[terryl965]

And yet war is a good thing:erg:
Terry

 

[Flying Crane]

And yet war is a good thing:erg:
Terry

That's what some people would have us believe...

 

[jdinca]

[/size][/size]

That depends on your definition of poor. The middle class is so far beneath (in terms of income) the people who are sending our kids to war and cutting their own (and those who pay for their campaigns) taxes, that all of the middle class could be considered poor. The bottom line is that the percentage of difference between 19,500 dollars and 50,000 dollars is MUCH less then it is if 50,000 dollars and 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 dollars is compared.

But now, my friend, we're arguing semantics. You're using relative income to describe who is poor and who isn't. I make good money, but I live in California. If I were to make the same amount in say, Iowa, I would live in a 4,000 square foot house on 10 acres. As it is, I can barely afford my 2500 sq. ft. house on a postage stamp lot. The person who makes what I make in Iowa would be considered wealthy, in California, I'm upper middle class. How does that fit in with your hypothesis? To use your example, yes, there's a tremendous difference between $50,000 and a million, or a billion but what about the difference between $50,000 and $90,000? The former is middle class, the latter is upper class. This does not take regional cost of living into account, at all.

By arguing that the middle class is not really middle class when compared to those at the top of the heap, you are changing the accepted definitions of socioeconomic status to fit your argument. The middle class is the middle class. Just because they don't have as much money as the wealthy doesn't suddenly make them poor.

Between 2001 and 2004, the poverty rate has increased from 11.3% to 12.7%. This is expected following a recession. Since 1959, when poverty rates were first being gathered, the nation's poverty rate has decreased by 43%. Yes, I do agree that there is income inequality but the numbers aren't as dire as those who want to take more of my money and give it to someone else would like us to think they are.

 

[Makalakumu]

But now, my friend, we're arguing semantics. You're using relative income to describe who is poor and who isn't. I make good money, but I live in California. If I were to make the same amount in say, Iowa, I would live in a 4,000 square foot house on 10 acres. As it is, I can barely afford my 2500 sq. ft. house on a postage stamp lot. The person who makes what I make in Iowa would be considered wealthy, in California, I'm upper middle class. How does that fit in with your hypothesis? To use your example, yes, there's a tremendous difference between $50,000 and a million, or a billion but what about the difference between $50,000 and $90,000? The former is middle class, the latter is upper class. This does not take regional cost of living into account, at all.

By arguing that the middle class is not really middle class when compared to those at the top of the heap, you are changing the accepted definitions of socioeconomic status to fit your argument. The middle class is the middle class. Just because they don't have as much money as the wealthy doesn't suddenly make them poor.

Between 2001 and 2004, the poverty rate has increased from 11.3% to 12.7%. This is expected following a recession. Since 1959, when poverty rates were first being gathered, the nation's poverty rate has decreased by 43%. Yes, I do agree that there is income inequality but the numbers aren't as dire as those who want to take more of my money and give it to someone else would like us to think they are.

I see what you are saying and I could easily change the statement I made before to say "poor and middle class" but my point remains...we are all poor when compared with the top and no amount of geographic standard of living adjustment could even come close to making up that difference.

And right now, the top is shifting the costs of the government and this war onto us...the poor.

 

[jdinca]

I see what you are saying and I could easily change the statement I made before to say "poor and middle class" but my point remains...we are all poor when compared with the top and no amount of geographic standard of living adjustment could even come close to making up that difference.

And right now, the top is shifting the costs of the government and this war onto us...the poor.

Shall we call it a draw? :cheers:

 

[mrhnau]

Gee, with all this negativity, I'd expect to look out on the street and see all the homeless people in abject poverty, since they are paying dramatically higher taxes and those nasty republicans are taking away every social services.

*looks around*

Nope.

Granted, they might be hiding somewhere... if so, the press would be eating it up, having permanent cameras turned on the shanty towns, a throwback to the Great Depression. Matter of fact, I don't see Bush raising taxes on the poor (you might find -isolated- cases, but not on the whole). There are always going to be poor. Its part of the human condition. They are here, they are in Europe, they are in Asia. Its part of democracy and capitalism. Even Jesus said "The poor will always be with you" (paraphrasing anyways). So, what -do- I see. I see the economy roaring along, doing quite fine. I don't hear of massive layoff, though some happen once in a while. They always happen.

Want to discuss the cost of the war? Thats fine, but its a seperate issue from "shifting the cost to the poor", which realistically we all know is not happening, unless you have some kind of agenda preset in your mind. Want to discuss social services? Do it on another thread, its already been done ad infinitum and its an arguement I'm a bit tired of hearing.

On another note, I don't hear alot of people complaining of the cost of ww2, which has alot of analogies to the current war. Wars cost money. Its a fact. Its not cheap to defeat an entrenched enemy. I suggest we bite the bullet, get it over with, prepare the Iraqi militia and get out as soon as we can. I'd like to see less expense, but war has always been a way of stimulating the economy, which is one reason I think we have done so well economically.

 

[michaeledward]

On another note, I don't hear alot of people complaining of the cost of ww2, which has alot of analogies to the current war. Wars cost money. Its a fact. Its not cheap to defeat an entrenched enemy. I suggest we bite the bullet, get it over with, prepare the Iraqi militia and get out as soon as we can. I'd like to see less expense, but war has always been a way of stimulating the economy, which is one reason I think we have done so well economically.

You aren't getting tired of comparing a War of Choice and Aggression to a War against Aggression? As I recall, by the time the United States got directly invovled in World War II, the German Blitzkrieg had over-run most of continental Europe. And ... I don't think the United States had been told, on December 6th, that the war would have a defined cost, that Germany would be able to pay for its own reconstruction.

But, some just love to point out that now, 60 years after World War II, Germany is a 'thriving democracy', obviously alluding to a similar goal for Iraq. I heard on the news this morning, the puppet leader of Germany has scheduled her audience with the President. After the recent election, there was some negotiations required to determine who was the appropriate puppet. Chancellor Merkel will be in Washington to pay homage.

And, by the way, when did our military finally come home from Germany?

 

[mrhnau]

You aren't getting tired of comparing a War of Choice and Aggression to a War against Aggression? As I recall, by the time the United States got directly invovled in World War II, the German Blitzkrieg had over-run most of continental Europe. And ... I don't think the United States had been told, on December 6th, that the war would have a defined cost, that Germany would be able to pay for its own reconstruction.

But, some just love to point out that now, 60 years after World War II, Germany is a 'thriving democracy', obviously alluding to a similar goal for Iraq. I heard on the news this morning, the puppet leader of Germany has scheduled her audience with the President. After the recent election, there was some negotiations required to determine who was the appropriate puppet. Chancellor Merkel will be in Washington to pay homage.

And, by the way, when did our military finally come home from Germany?

Since when have estimates for the costs from the government been accurate?

I hardly consider Germany to have a "puppet" leader. If thats the case, since the US is the sole superpower left (gee, some people hate that fact), it does not stipulate that everyone else is a puppet. We have a big impact on the rest of the world. Does not make them our pawns though.

When did they come home? there is some negotiation on that fact recently, and perhaps the base opening in Romania will have some impact? Will we have a base in Iraq in the future? Perhaps, but we have bases all over the world. I have suspected that we will remain there for a while, or perhaps in Kuwait. Time will tell... I imagine it will be in our interest to have a foothold in Iraq. I suppose the elected officials there will decide if they want us there on a permanant basis. (can't wait to hear you denounce their decisions if they decide they want us, another "puppet"?)

 

[michaeledward]

Whether you or I consider Chancellor Merkel a puppet or not, really is irrelevant. If however, you look at the actions, without prejudice, you will find that whenever a new leader is elected in Japan or Germany, they very quickly make the trip to the United States. How many leaders in the other 180 countries around the world can't even get an audience with the President?

And, it should also be important to note, that the Euporean Union has a larger population than the United States, a higher GDP than the United States, and certainly has greater influence in other parts of the world .. which begs the question, why isn't Chancellor Merkel going to Brussels?

Looking toward Iraq, and military bases and forward deployment there. Listening to the Shi'ite leaders in Iraq is getting pretty scary. All of the Shi'ite leaders in this last election received a nod of approval from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. There are quotes about the Iraqi's getting short of patience.

There are 25,000,000 Iraqi's and 180,000 'coalition' forces in Iraq. This begs the question .... "Does the Name Custer mean anything to you?".

 

[Makalakumu]

Gee, with all this negativity, I'd expect to look out on the street and see all the homeless people in abject poverty, since they are paying dramatically higher taxes and those nasty republicans are taking away every social services.

*looks around*

Nope.

It's pretty hard to see these things while sitting at your computer...

Granted, they might be hiding somewhere... if so, the press would be eating it up, having permanent cameras turned on the shanty towns, a throwback to the Great Depression.

You are absolutely and 100% wrong on this. Certain people in the US don't want to see poor and homeless people. They don't want to see the shanty towns right outside their McMansions. They don't want to see it because they don't want to know that it exists. The press won't put this on camera.

I could show you where these things are. I could take you to places where people starve and freeze to death in the richest country in the world.

Matter of fact, I don't see Bush raising taxes on the poor (you might find -isolated- cases, but not on the whole).

Cutting social services and shifting the cost of government away from the rich surely puts some financial stress on the poor.

There are always going to be poor. Its part of the human condition. They are here, they are in Europe, they are in Asia. Its part of democracy and capitalism. Even Jesus said "The poor will always be with you" (paraphrasing anyways). So, what -do- I see. I see the economy roaring along, doing quite fine. I don't hear of massive layoff, though some happen once in a while. They always happen.

Didn't someone make the point above that the amount of people in poverty has risen in the last few years...this happened despite the positive economic news and despite the fact that certain individuals are making money hand over fist.

Want to discuss the cost of the war? Thats fine, but its a seperate issue from "shifting the cost to the poor", which realistically we all know is not happening, unless you have some kind of agenda preset in your mind. Want to discuss social services? Do it on another thread, its already been done ad infinitum and its an arguement I'm a bit tired of hearing.

The cost of the war and who will pay for it are one discussion. This administration and the GOP expects the poor (and the middle class - jdinca) to pay both bills...the financial and the butchers. I find it infuriatingly ironic that the people who are pushing this legislation did everything they could to not have to face an enemy down for this country and are not sacrificing their own sons and daughters for an effort that will most likely net many in their ranks, billions of dollars.

On another note, I don't hear alot of people complaining of the cost of ww2, which has alot of analogies to the current war.

There are very few analogies that can be drawn between the Iraq War and WWII.

Wars cost money. Its a fact. Its not cheap to defeat an entrenched enemy. I suggest we bite the bullet, get it over with, prepare the Iraqi militia and get out as soon as we can. I'd like to see less expense, but war has always been a way of stimulating the economy, which is one reason I think we have done so well economically.

This war will certainly stimulate the economy. Once Iraq and other oil rich nations are secured and stabilized with friendly governments, our oil glut will be satiated for a little while longer...

 

[Makalakumu]

Shall we call it a draw? :cheers:

No problem. I was playing with the definitions a little to make a point...

 

[mrhnau]

Whether you or I consider Chancellor Merkel a puppet or not, really is irrelevant. If however, you look at the actions, without prejudice, you will find that whenever a new leader is elected in Japan or Germany, they very quickly make the trip to the United States. How many leaders in the other 180 countries around the world can't even get an audience with the President?

do you think if power changed hands in England they new PM would not come visit soon? think if power changed hands in Mexico that the new President would not come visit? Must the president visit with every newly elected leader from every country? When can he have time to do his job in that case? think he is not in communication with most major world leaders?

And, it should also be important to note, that the Euporean Union has a larger population than the United States, a higher GDP than the United States, and certainly has greater influence in other parts of the world .. which begs the question, why isn't Chancellor Merkel going to Brussels?

go to Brussels. Thats fine. I'm sure she will in time.

Looking toward Iraq, and military bases and forward deployment there. Listening to the Shi'ite leaders in Iraq is getting pretty scary. All of the Shi'ite leaders in this last election received a nod of approval from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. There are quotes about the Iraqi's getting short of patience.

There are 25,000,000 Iraqi's and 180,000 'coalition' forces in Iraq. This begs the question .... "Does the Name Custer mean anything to you?".

Hardly relevant. They have the power to remove us if they want. When they want us out, lets leave. Until then, we prepare their forces and help secure the country.