Iraq War could cost $2 Trillion Dollars

That would solve ALL the Social Security problems!







Today Knight Ridder carried a story about a study completed by two economists, one of which is a Nobel Prize-winner, which estimated the long tem cost of the Iraq War could reach $ 2 Trillion dollars. This study included the ongoing cost in Iraq over the next decade of $265 Billion, the cost of 35,000 injured and the replacement of much of the Army and Marine Corps equipment.

That is enough money to SOLVE the baby boomer problems with Social Security, Rebuild ALL the ageing infrastructure in the entire country or go a long way to solve the Medicare funding needs. Instead of dealing with those unimportant needs of Americans, we deposed ONE of about 20 evil dictators in this world who posed NO DANGER TO AMERICA! Just think of the tax increases this war will impose on OUR CHILDREN!
6,002 views 16 replies
Reply #1 Top
It would solve all the Social Security problems temporarily.

In reality, it would simply postpone the problems of Social Security.

Also, it would leave about 2 Trillion Dollars worth of freedom, democracy, and counter-terrorism unsolved.

Might as well say we should phase out Social Security altogether, establish personal retirement programs like 401(k)s and Roth IRAs, and use the SS taxes to fund an additional several billions dollars of War on Terror.

Solving one problem at the expense of another is usually not good policy.
Reply #2 Top
Your logic would be correct IF the Iraq War had made us safer. We have just as much of a danger in 2006 from the radical Islamic terrorist as we did in 2003; WE have spent all the money, killed 2,200 Americans and injured another 35,000 WITH NO REAL solution to the danger to us from terrorism. WHERE IS THE RETURN from our investment?
Reply #3 Top
The problem with phasing out SS is that you still have the issue of funding the retirement of millions who are too old for a 401K option. That was what was wrong with the Bush plan. He wanted to convert the system for the younger workers but all that did was to make the funding of the older workers worse. There was NEVER a plan as to how and meet the commitments to the 40 and older workers and divert the SS tax for the younger workers.
Reply #4 Top

WHERE IS THE RETURN from our investment?


Al-Qaeda have made many enemies among Arab Muslims.

Iraqis and Jordanians now hate Al-Qaeda and have joined our war against Islamic fundamentalism.

Now that the western world and Israel as well as many of those Al-Qaeda could conceivably recruit have Al-Qaeda as a common enemy, we are much closer to winning the war than before.

Also, Libya has given up her WMD program. And unless you are personally immune against Libyan bombs, that would probably constitute being safer.

And IF Iran tries something, American and British (as well as Iraqi) troops are now at their border, on BOTH sides, since we also took Afghanistan.
Reply #5 Top
I agree, the money could be better put to use, or better yet, not spent at all. The money we're spending on the war in Iraq is all debt. Neocons like to bring up the fact that we haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11, therefore, the money is well spent. The reason we haven't been attacked on our soil is that we've eliminated the Islamic terrorist sleeper cells here, of which there were few to begin with. The war has intensified hatred of the U.S. by Muslims and has made the Middle East much more unstable. There is evidence that the people of Iran elected Ahmadinejad, a raving lunatic, because the Iranians feared an attack by the U.S. and they wanted a hard-liner. It could turn out that our invasion of Iraq was the biggest blunder in U.S. history.
Reply #6 Top
Ben, I see you completely ignored the REAL points a neo-con made and continue to argue against what you believe that neo-cons say.

Why don't you address the three points I made:

1. Libya gave up its WMD program.

2. Iraqis and Jordanians are now hostile to Al-Qaeda.

3. Iran is surrounded by American and British troops.

That's three outcomes of the Iraq war that neo-cons constantly bring up. But you never addressed them. You continue addressing only those points YOU claim neo-cons make.
Reply #7 Top
All that, if true, has not reduced the threat of terrorist attacks. Look at 2005 all over the world. Al-Qaeda has dispersed and is harder to get at then ever. We are hated by more Moslems then before attacking Iraq. We may have troops in neighboring Iraq but if we moved them into Iran, the violence in Iraq would most likely get worse. We are tied down with a war that has NOT MADE the United States Safer. Everything the so called neo-cons told us before the war has turned out to be wrong.
Reply #8 Top
You still haven't addressed two of the three points.

I also wonder where you always get your news that Muslims hate the US. The Iraqis don't seem to hate the US. Perhaps it's only those Muslims who don't know the US?

In that case the US' best strategy would be to make more Muslims learn to know the US, aka take over more of their countries and show them what can be done.

And how is Al-Qaeda harder to get than ever? Is the number of possible hiding places inversely proportional to the area somewhat controlled by the US?

It's impossible to "get" Al-Qaeda. But what we can do is take away their breeding ground.

Al-Qaeda and Arab nationalists have so far lost Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Libya, all because of Iraq. How is that not a grand success?
Reply #9 Top
In that case the US' best strategy would be to make more Muslims learn to know the US, aka take over more of their countries and show them what can be done


aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha
Reply #10 Top
Leauki

We are in a NO WIN situation. Look at the reaction in Pakistan today. If you believe the majority of Moslems support us you are kidding yourself. There are some Moslem governments that provide support but even in these countries the majority of the population are NOT REAL SUPPORTERS. Jordan, at lease the ruling members, have been helpful. The new Iraq government NEEDS us to stay in power. The majority of the people want us to get out. Iraq is a hot bed of terrorist operations. We do not know what is taking place within Lebanon or Libya. I doubt the majority of the people would support the U S against Moslems, even the more moderate Moslems.

How would we take over ANY other country in the area? We can not maintain the force levels in Iraq with the size of our military. If we moved our troops from Iraq to another country what would the terrorists do in Iraq? Our policy has very FEW UP SIDES and very many DOWN SIDES. For one thing, we do not have a military of the size needed to become involved in another area even if we were attacked. Bush has refused to deal with the fact the active military is TOO SMALL (his campaign position in 2000) and we have invaded Iraq which was not a real threat to our security. Between the military in country, those recovering and those getting ready to deploy, we have 500,000 military tied up with the Iraq War.
Reply #11 Top
Col, I know you are in a no-win situation.

Those Muslims who now know the US, support the US. The others resent them for it.

More will fall for the US, just like in Japan and Europe. Sometimes history cannot be stopped, even if you try very hard.
Reply #12 Top
It is not me in a no win situation with the Moslems. It is the U.S. that is in a bad situation. Support from a few governments is one thing what I am talking about is support in general.
Reply #13 Top
Al-Qaeda have made many enemies among Arab Muslims.

Iraqis and Jordanians now hate Al-Qaeda and have joined our war against Islamic fundamentalism.

Now that the western world and Israel as well as many of those Al-Qaeda could conceivably recruit have Al-Qaeda as a common enemy, we are much closer to winning the war than before.
That was true on 9/11; Iraqi war had nothing to with it.

Also, Libya has given up her WMD program. And unless you are personally immune against Libyan bombs, that would probably constitute being safer.
Again, this motion was in the works long before the Iraqi war.
And IF Iran tries something, American and British (as well as Iraqi) troops are now at their border, on BOTH sides, since we also took Afghanistan.

Yeah, right, like we are in a position to launch another ground war.
Reply #14 Top
Wow, Gene. Can you get any more pathetically obvious?
Reply #15 Top
Better take a look at what is taking place in Pakistan. If you believe we are making friends in the Moslem world, think again! http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/international/asia/16pakistan.html?th&emc=th
Reply #16 Top
Here is another article showing how the growing deficit from the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts are harming our country.


Jan 15, 10:13 PM EST

Analysts: Growing Deficit Hobbles Economy

By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Like a person packing on pounds, the United States keeps adding to its flabby budget deficits, endangering the nation's economic health and the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans. Here's the worry: Persistent deficits will lead to higher borrowing costs for consumers and companies, slowing economic activity.

As Uncle Sam seeks to borrow ever more to finance those deficits, rates on Treasury securities would rise to entice investors. That would push up other interest rates, such as home mortgages, many auto loans, some home equity lines of credit and some credit cards.

"That's the pocketbook risk to the American consumer," said Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, an online financial service.

For businesses, rates on corporate bonds would climb. It would become more expensive to borrow to pay for new plants and equipment and other capital investments.

Advertisement


With a succession of budget deficits, "you do expect to see higher interest rates. Where we fight about this is over how big the effects are. But they are definitely there," said James Feyrer, assistant economics professor at Dartmouth College.

The government's budget deficit last year was $319 billion. While smaller than the record $413 billion in 2004, it still was the third-highest ever.

A White House budget official now predicts that the deficit in the current budget year will top $400 billion, pushed up by the costs of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. The red ink is expected to keep flowing for years.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts deficits every year through 2015; that is as far out as the office projects. The White House forecast, which runs to 2010, also expects annual shortfalls.

Buy AP Photo Reprints


"The budget deficit is like gaining weight. You are not really aware of it until at some point, all of a sudden you can't do what you want to do because you are heavier. Interest rates go up and slow things down," said Brian Bethune, economist at Global Insight. "Then you go to your check up and the doctor tells you you got to lose 25 pounds."

America's economic doctor is Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan, who retires Jan. 31 after 18-plus years at the central bank, repeatedly has urged Congress and the Bush administration to get the country's financial house in order.

Bloated budget deficits, if not curbed, could endanger the economy over the long term, Greenspan warned. Increased government borrowing would drive up interest rates and weigh down economic activity.

"In the end, the consequences for the U.S. economy of doing nothing could be severe," he said recently.

The looming retirement of 78 million baby boomers will put massive strains on the country's finances, Greenspan said.

In 2008, the oldest of the boomers will reach 62, the earliest age at which they can tap Social Security retirement benefits. Three years after that, in 2011, they will reach 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

Ben Bernanke, chosen by President Bush to succeed Greenspan, also believes the situation is troubling and that the deficits need to be controlled.

"Budget deficits are a problem," he said. "I think it's important to continue to reduce budget deficits."

The administration has a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 and plans to do that by restraining spending. The president, meanwhile, is continuing to press Congress to make his tax cuts permanent.

Democrats mostly blame Bush's tax cuts for the government's red ink. The last time the government recorded a surplus was in 2001.

In a worst-case scenario, foreigners who finance the U.S. budget and trade deficits would sour on U.S. investments and unload their holdings. The prices of U.S. stocks and bonds could plunge. Interest rates, including those for mortgages, could soar. A financial crisis could confront the country.

Economists are troubled by the prospects of budget deficits as far as the eye can see and want to see them trimmed. But the size of the current budget deficits, while unwelcome, do not signal that a crisis is imminent, they said.

An important barometer is the size of the federal debt - now about $8 trillion - relative to the overall economy, as measured by gross domestic product. Under that measure, this debt accounts for around 63.2 percent of GDP, Bethune said.

"Generally speaking, when it is over 75 percent of GDP, then the yellow flag goes out. I would say 95 percent of GDP and over is definitely a red flag," Bethune said.

The government produces a budget deficit when its total spending exceeds its total revenues. Budget deficits cause the government to borrow more money by selling Treasury securities to domestic and foreign investors. That additional borrowing increases the government's debt.

Despite the recent string of large budget deficits, long-term interest rates in the U.S. have behaved well. In fact, relatively low long-term rates around the world have puzzled economists and spawned a number of theories. Some experts believe too little investment worldwide may be behind this; others believe too much savings is the reason.

From an economic point of view, there is more concern about higher borrowing costs over time crimping business investment and ultimately the production of goods and services, economists said.

"Low investment is bad. That's going to mean lower productivity and lower production in the future, which has a cost on society," said Erik Hurst, associate professor of economics at University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business.

People who save would benefit, assuming inflation stayed under control. If the deficits fanned inflation, then the Fed would need to boost interest rates, pushing a whole range of borrowing costs even higher.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.