$81 Billion makes the grand total $300 Billion

[brettdale]

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved
$81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill
that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050422/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_spending

[kliljedahl]

1. & Kerry was ridiculed for saying $200 billion

go figure.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[babylonsister]

2. Money and death-it's all about numbers. When

both figures get big enough, people will get outraged.

[walldude]

12. 300 Billion isn't big enough? n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

30. 300 Billion doesn't mean anything to them anymore or you would have seen

that outrage already.

300 billion doesn't mean anything to them as long as they can get a T-shirt AND a pair of shoes at Wal*Mart for ten bucks made by some child slave in Indonesia.

300 billion doesn't mean anything to them as long as they can gobble down a big cheap hormone, dioxin and pesticide filled garbage burger fresh from their backyard grill made possible by the clear cutting of Brazilian rain forest and/or brought to them by the the cruelty and filth of factory farming and the industrial slaughterhouse.

300 billion doesn't mean anything to them as long as they can continue to drive big honkin' SUV's subsidized in part by tax breaks from the government who's interest is FAR from removing the suckling American glutton from the big oil teat.

300 billion doesn't mean anything to them as long as they have a government who teaches that there is no higher virtue, no cause more noble than to go forth and CONSUME. As long as they are able to pursue this exalted life of waste, excess and gluttony - they do not care.

[gristy]

3. There are people and powers who wanted this to happen

The more money we spend on the conflict the better.
Their objective is to bankrupt the U.S., or at
a minimum, reduce us to an economic lightweight.
This is what I believe.

[FreedomAngel82]

4. Of course

And they also are making their rich friends richer and us poorer and of course all they have to do is shout "the gay's are going to ruin marriage!" and they'll still get votes. I'll never understand. :crazy:

[brokensymmetry]

7. They're doing one heck of a job of it.

At the present rate, I wonder if anyone can save us after 2008.

[ima_sinnic]

14. exactly what Osama bin Laden said in his last "communique"

if you will recall--he said he was going to bankrupt us.

that was what made my head hurt when considering how little I believed it was indeed a message from Osama himself and not some ruse on the part of BushCo--it seemed to me BushCo would have created a message about bombing things, with threats of violence, but this sounded like it came from somebody a lot wiser than BushCo, who knew how to use our own weapons against ourselves, to sit back and laugh while we threw all of our money down the toilet.

[whistle]

5. I heard briefly on a news report following the vote of this spending

...package, that something like $30 billion of this spending has nothing to do with emergency spending needs, but I failed to catch the explanation. Does anyone know what that is referring to? I know they got some pork cut out like the Washington DC baseball stadium, but what would the other spending components consist of?

[goodboy]

6. didn't wolfoshitz say it would cost 1 bn?

[progressoid]

28. exactly. Oil revenues would take care of the rest!!

[goodboy]

34. and he's now head of the world bank? (nt)

[Rex]

8. 300 billion on Iraq and 70 billion for public education in America.

Children? We can always make more!

[nolabels]

38. "LEAVE NO WAR LEFT BEHIND"

When you wage PEACE you just go to poor house I guess?

Center On Peace & Liberty
(snip)
Unwilling to even discuss whether the U.S.’s interventionist foreign policies (particularly in the Middle East) might be factors in causing the new security threats, Washington has unilaterally declared that the new terrorist war must be a global war without end, with no clear objectives, no clearly identifiable enemy, no specified geographical area, and no clear strategy. The enemy is not on some front, does not have invading armies, navies and air forces, and since we are now all under government surveillance, apparently it could be any of us. In the fight against such a different kind of enemy, which may pose a more challenging threat for an open society to battle, could the “best defense is a good offense” doctrine in the U.S. national security strategy be exactly the wrong policy to pursue?

After retaliating against the Al Qaeda terrorist network, and its Taliban enablers, the Bush Administration speaks of “bringing justice” to “axis-of-evil” countries not involved in the 9/11 attacks—all while Osama bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda’s leaders have escaped.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has pursued a pre-emptive war and military occupation in Iraq, and the Middle East is increasingly unstable. World leaders in Europe, Asia, Africa, and around the world view U.S. military intervention with increasing alarm, and international sentiment indicates that the U.S. is more hated than ever. Could U.S. policies be provoking much of this hatred and further threats to the safety of Americans and people around the world? If so, the broader war against the “axis of evil” has played right into bin Laden’s hands.

On the home front, the U.S. government has created new protectionism, corporate welfare, federalizations, and political pork as interest groups line up to cash in on the terrorist crisis. U.S. agencies have further acquired broad new police powers to systematically spy on and detain both American citizens and foreign nationals without due process. Will the Orwellian USA PATRIOT Act—legislation still being written when it was passed by Congress—really hinder terrorists or simply enable militant fundamentalists to destroy American liberty as the U.S. itself shreds the Bill of Rights? Are such policies really producing a safer, freer, and more peaceful world? If not, how can we do so?
(snip)
http://www.independent.org/research/copal/

[DRoseDARs]

9. It's amazing how lucrative those Iraqi oil fields have been... n/t

[VOX]

18. Yeah. This fiasco was supposed to "pay for itself." Hah. n/t

[Deja Q]

22. Quite. Looking at the popularity #s, I suspect many people didn't forget.

Which is unusual; most peoples' brains clicked to 'off' just after 9/11.

[Cash]

10. It's only money.

:party:

[Hissyspit]

11. Gee, this is getting to be a pretty expensive cakewalk...

Edwards was given a hard time for saying $300 Billion several months ago.

$300 Billion could have shored up Social Security into the 22nd Century.

- We could have used it for the cuts in Medicaid.
- We could have used it to fully fund No Child Behind.
- We could have used it to fund the money being cut from nursery homes.
- We could have used it for VA hospitals.

Feel free to add your own.

[Disturbed]

13. $400 Billion soon.

It may well get to $600 Billion and the majority of Dems will vote for the funds. Iraq is important to the Oligarchy.

I am beginning to think that it is not for harvesting the oil in the next few years but keeping it out of play for other countries to consume while the Saudis and U.S. oil Corps rake in higher profits than ever before.

[sweetheart]

15. The tragedy of opportunity cost

In economics, they call the cost of doing something, not only what it
has "cost", but as well, the opportunities that were missed. This 300
billion is just the tip of the iceburg if we look at it with those eyes.

Those 300 billion could have ended the spread of AIDS, Malaria and
provided clean water supplies to every person on the planet. Those
300 billion could have rebuilt the schools and universities of america,
and so many more wise and intelligent things.

Instead, it has been invested in a crusade against islam, something
that will pay dividends in war, hatred and diminished soft power for
centuries to come. Were we to total up the dividend cost of this
investment using the present value of all those future wars created
by this heinous crime, the costs are in the trillions.

These criminals have squandered ours, our children's and our
grandchildren's goodwill to murder people in a desert, and oh what
a tragedy of all those schools and people not dying from tragic
circumstances the world over, all lost for the folly of small and
evil men.

[Avalon Sparks]

16. So true Sweetheart.

Excellent post.

[DemBeans]

32. very well said -

[Solly Mack]

17. Are we talking "real money" yet, Georgie?

sheesh

[leftchick]

19. In the Bill: $592 MILLION for the US Embassy in Baghdad!

$592 MILLION for the Baghdad US Embassy...



aka: US headquarters for running our newest colony, Iraq!

<snip>

One major area of disagreement is over the administration's plans to build a new embassy in Baghdad. The House deleted money for the construction project, largely due to concerns about record U.S. budget deficits.


The Senate has included $592 million for the project, which would be the largest U.S. embassy in the world.

[ClintonTyree]

23. I'm taking bets...

that after completion, that Embassy will not last 5 years. It will either be blown up or taken over by rebel insurgents and turned into a hostage situation. Of course a Democrat will be at the helm then and the Cons can cut a deal to have the hostages released immediately after the election of a new, Republican president. Sound familiar?

The Iraqi's are NOT going to stand for such an overt symbol of American Imperialism in their country.

[leftchick]

29. like this?

[NuttyFluffers]

42. i believe randi made a funny contrast with this.

she found out the twin towers of jakarta (forget the name) was like the most expensive building in the world before this one embassy. they are two towers and, if i remember correctly, the tallest buildings in the world.

this embassy costs more.

:D

:rofl: :popcorn:

ahh, logic.

[Athame]

20. This is on top of the regular military budget, right?

from the article, but it is easy to overlook:

The funds are in addition to the Pentagon's ANNUAL budget, which exceeds $400 billion. (emphasis mine)

[tecelote]

21. While thousands of Iraqi's die...

Osama is still free.

What's wrong with this picture?

[ClintonTyree]

25. What's wrong?

Every freaking neo-con in our government. That's what's wrong. Clean that scum out and MAYBE we can recover and make America a decent country to live in again. If we don't.......fuck it. I'm off to Canada.

[Jacobin]

24. That's one thousand dollars for every man woman and child

in the U.S.

That's TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for every Iraqi, SO FAR and of course the end is NOWHERE in sight.

Of course, our economy is great, we have plenty of money to go conquer oil fields and now we have lots of oil :eyes: and the Iraqis are using their oil revenues to pay for the war :eyes:

[HereSince1628]

26. W's War slips into fourth place in direct costs of American Wars

while per month spending on W's War is greater than Vietnam...

Comparisons of Iraq War to Ten other American Wars

Duration of US involvement in months
1. Vietnam ..................90
2. Revolution................80
3. Civil War.................48
4. World War II..............44
5. Korean War................37
6. War of 1812...............30
7 Iraq War..................25
8. Mexican-American..........20
9. World War I...............19
10. Spanish-American..........4
11. Gulf War..................1

Direct Financial Costs (Billions)
1. World War II.............3,025
2. Vietnam....................500
3. Korean.....................382
4. Iraq War...................300
5. World War /................283
6. Civil War ..................63
7. Gulf War.....................8 (88 before international reimbursement)
8. Spanish-American.............8
9. Revolutionary................2
10. Mexican-American............1
11. War of 1812.................1


American Combat Deaths
1. World War II ..........292,131
2. Civil War (Combined)...184,594
3. World War I ............53,513
4. Vietnam.................47,369
5. Korean..................33,651
6. Revolutionary War........4,435
7. War of 1812..............2,260
8. Mexican-American.........1,733
9. Iraq War.................1,565
10. Spanish-American..........385
11. Gulf War..................148

Sources:
Duration of wars:
www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.html
US population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001519.html

Casualties:
www.antiwar.com/casualties/
www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.html

[Applan]

27. That's $1000 per person

With the population of the US at just under 300 million, that works out at about $1000 for every man, woman and child in this great country of ours.
It's getting expensive.

[Brianboru]

39. I want my money back!

[soggy]

40. Or $7,317.07 per taxpaying household

when i run in to people who are indifferent to the iraq war, the bogus rationales, and the incredible loss of american and iraqi civilian life... i usually ask them if they can think of anything else they would rather have spent $7,317.07 on... that usually gets the wheels turning.

when do we get to wipe out iran???

[getmeouttahere]

31. Remember, Grover Norquist was quoted as saying....

that they wanted to get government down to a size where they could "drown it in the bathtub" but of course that doesn't include the bloated defense portion, so...

can someone find out which repub lawmaker stated that one of the state's going bankrupt wouldn't be such a bad thing, as if that would be an incubator for their plans to destroy our social infrastructure?

[Dr Gonzo]

33. Famous Quotes

Budget Director Mitch Daniels:

On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as “very, very high” and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion

“When a reporter asked Daniels yesterday whether the administration was preparing to ask other countries to help defray possible Iraq war costs, as the United States did for the 1991 war, the budget director said he knew of no such plans. Other countries are having economic downturns of their own, he said.”

“There’s just no reason that this can’t be an affordable endeavor.”

“The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”

“I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz:

“I think it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are.”

Top Economist Adviser Glen Hubbard:

“Costs of any such intervention would be very small.”

Budget Director Josh Bolten:

“We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year.”

Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost:

The Bush administration promised reconstruction of Iraq could be financed through oil revenue, which they said would provide tens of billions of dollars. However, according to the New York Times, devastated and decrepit production systems leave the country “unable to make any significant contribution.”

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.”

State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense… funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.

[GOPBasher]

35. We spent that but didn't pay it. My daughter will pick up that

price tag with interest. :grr:

[StaggerLee]

36. NOT fuzzy math

Real numbers. Debt that reaches into the pockets of real generations for years to come.

:mad:

[chlamor]

37. Man and Machine

"A perfect 10: BrahMos, the supersonic cruise missile, taking off from the Naval vessel Rajput on Friday morning in the Arabian Sea towards a decommissioned vessel, which was the target." — Photo Courtesy: Defence Research and Development Organisation, from "The Hindu" newspaper, Saturday April 16, 2005. This tenth perfect launch, which shattered the 7,000 ton target vessel, was conducted in the Arabian Sea, under the noses of the American Fleet.

[progressivebydesign]

41. Bush cut the Victims and Witnesses funds for this?? n/t

[LaPera]

43. How many schools, clinics, infrastructures, jobs, environmental progress,

could we have achived...With three hundred billion dollars instead of OUR tax dollars going right back into the corporate stockholders for monster profits for them & BushCo...

While paying little or no taxes.

Well, I guess it speaks for itself...

Shameful, simply shameful!

[Wizard777]

44. Christmas for Halliburton!

The worst part is they keep throwing the money down a rathole. The last I heard about the Halliburton scandal is that the Pentagon forgave the 600 Million in over billing, price gouging, and out right fraud. But ironically enough in Totally Unrelated News. The Pentagon has requested a 600 Million dollar reimbursement from the Tsunami Fund for their Tsunami Relief expenditures. Too bad that's not a charity like Halliburton.