Cost of Bush Iraq war could top $2 trillion - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-09-2006, 03:36 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:08 PM
Cost of Bush Iraq war could top $2 trillion

Quote:
Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion

Tally exceeds White House projections

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 8, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion after factoring in long-term healthcare for wounded US veterans, rebuilding a worn-down military, and accounting for other unforeseen bills and economic losses, according to a new analysis to be presented today in Boston.

The estimate by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes far exceeds projections made by the Bush administration.

The figure is more than four times what the war was expected to cost through 2006 -- around $500 billion, according to congressional budget data.

The new study is billed as a detailed analysis not only of the potential costs of sustaining the operation in Iraq for at least several more years, but also the expenses likely to be incurred by taxpayers long after US troops withdraw.

The government will have costly obligations to a new class of veterans, be forced to make new investments in stressed military ranks thinned by multiple tours of duty, and withstand the enduring impact of the war on the nation's overall financial outlook.

For example, the study attributes a portion of the increase in oil prices -- $5 per barrel -- to instability in the Middle East caused by the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and sparked a bloody insurgency.

It estimates that the shock to the oil industry has already added at least $25 billion to the price tag of the conflict.

The analysis also attempts to account for the war's impact on the ballooning federal deficit, its ripple effects on overall economic growth and investment, and losses in productivity.

''There are quite a few things that are not being captured in the budgetary numbers" presented by the government, said Stiglitz, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001. ''When you add up all of those numbers, it increases substantially. I think $2 trillion is conservative."

The findings will be presented at the Sheraton Boston Hotel today at a conference of economists and social scientists sponsored by the Allied Social Sciences Association, the American Economic Association, and the Economists for Peace and Security.

The authors said their predictions were largely based on previous data -- including from past conflicts -- that were compiled by government agencies, including the Pentagon, The Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Congressional Budget Office.

For the purposes of their study, Stiglitz and Bilmes assumed the US mission in Iraq would last until 2010, but with a steadily declining number of US troops each year.

The Bush administration has not made the kind of long-term estimates cited in the new study and has sought periodic installments from Congress to keep the mission going.

The White House, which predicted in 2002 that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, declined to comment on the new study. The Office of Management and Budget ''does not comment on this type of speculation," said spokesman Rich Walker.

Predicting overall costs when no one knows how long the war will last, or how many US troops will remain deployed and for how long, is an imprecise exercise.

But the range of some future expenses can be assessed, such as the likely medical bills and disability payments for the soldiers who have been wounded in the conflict.

Twenty percent of them, for example, have serious brain or spinal injuries that will require life-long care.

The cost of death benefits to military families and bonuses being paid to soldiers to reenlist and to sign up new recruits can also be tallied.

So can secondary costs such as the interest on the rising budget deficit as a result of war spending.

More indirect costs are open to wide interpretation -- such as assessing how much the US economy might grow if funding for the war were instead invested at home, determining the lost economic output of combat casualties, or gauging the perils of spreading the military elsewhere around the globe.

Nevertheless, the study underscored what some already suspected.

''Many of the costs of the war in Iraq are ones we haven't even begun to pay yet," said US Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Lowell and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

''If the war in Iraq were to end today, we would still face hundreds of billions of dollars in costs far into the future," he said.

Stiglitz, a former adviser to Bill Clinton and top economist at the World Bank, is widely considered to be a liberal.

In his writings, he has criticized globalization and has called for stronger government intervention to moderate market forces.

He also has criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

In an opinion article in the Los Angeles Times in February 2003, he warned Americans to ''expect skittish markets, higher deficits, and slower growth" as a result of an invasion of Iraq.

Still, he is not considered to be out of the mainstream.

''Stiglitz rants against globalization, and generally barks louder than he bites," said Timothy Kane, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. ''That is, he is a champion to the lefties, but never really says that free trade is bad."

Bilmes, who teaches management at Harvard's Kennedy School, is a former assistant secretary of commerce in the Clinton administration.

Together, they have mapped out what they believe to be a end-to-end estimate of the cost of the largest US military engagement since the Vietnam War, which is about to enter its third year with well over 100,000 US troops deployed.

They assert that the military deployment will lead to secondary costs once the mission winds down -- both in terms of equipment and personnel.

''The wear and tear on military equipment is one expense that has yet to be factored in and could reach into the tens of billions of dollars," Stiglitz said.

Meanwhile, the researchers used data from the 1991 Persian Gulf War to try to predict long-term healthcare costs for the veterans who have long-term injuries and who need other benefits.

''There are 16,000 people with serious injuries," Stiglitz said. ''That number is predicted to double [by 2010], and every injured person has health costs, plus disability. That is an obvious but important example that represents costs in Iraq not reflected" in the official numbers,

Those costs bring the price tag of the war up to about $650 billion, Stiglitz said, but that doesn't include broader economic factors such as the war's drag on the federal deficit.

''We have to borrow money, and we have to pay interest, and we have to pay interest on the interest," he said.

And then there are macro-economic costs, such as the war's overall effect on the economy even as increases in defense spending fuel growth in some industries.

''It has a multiplier effect," Stiglitz said.

For example, he said, ''because we are spending more on oil, we are spending less at home. Just like a tax cut is a stimulus, an oil hike is a destimulus."
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 04:34 AM   #2
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 07:08 AM
So guys! Have you learnt your lesson,please tell me you will not vote for him again.
Johnny's no better, bloody brown nose he is!
__________________

__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 06:29 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:08 AM
I think that there are plenty of other factors on the oil price than Iraq, the position of seeking stability in the region is the most reactionary and is a common halmark of Cold War realists and now many progressives.

The political developments in Syria today and Iran are heavily influenced by the removal of Saddam and the fostering of civil society within Iraq, the true cost and benefits for it will be objectively clear in a decades time.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 07:56 AM   #4
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 09:08 PM
No need to worry about money, we'll just borrow more.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:21 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:08 PM
As long as the top 1% profit, who the fuck cares about everyone else? We're just pawns for the dawn of New American Century.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:48 AM   #6
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 07:38 AM
Surely people still don't believe this 'War for oil' business anymore. I'm sure the US government would have seen it as unprofitable to invade Iraq purely to control oil deposits, or are they potentially worth more than the initial assessment for the total cost of the war?
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:53 AM   #7
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by fly so high!

Johnny's no better, bloody brown nose he is!

If I was Prime Minister I'd do exactly what Howard is doing. I would do whatever Bush would ask of us, I wouldn't want to jeoporadise our ties with our number 1 ally. I'd see it in the best interests of Australia to be Georgies handpuppet.
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:55 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:08 PM
That's alot of money.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 02:57 AM   #9
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 07:08 AM
You have got to be kidding!

Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman
If I was Prime Minister I'd do exactly what Howard is doing. I would do whatever Bush would ask of us, I wouldn't want to jeoporadise our ties with our number 1 ally. I'd see it in the best interests of Australia to be Georgies handpuppet.
So you are OK with having to pay a war tax or a 2% levy to fund the cost of war on Iraq!
Saddam is a bastard and what he has done to his people,unforgivable,but justifying a war on a country that is already in shambles,cruel and inhumane,not to mention illegal! Don't forget the "Allies" did not get approval from UN,maybe this war on terror will actually cost alot more than the said amount if the Iraqi goverment decides to sue the "Allies"!
__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 02:58 AM   #10
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 07:08 AM
Sorry! I'm correcting a double post
__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 04:38 AM   #11
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Townsville, QLD, Australia
Posts: 48
Local Time: 07:08 AM
Re: You have got to be kidding!

Quote:
Originally posted by fly so high!


So you are OK with having to pay a war tax or a 2% levy to fund the cost of war on Iraq!
Why was this levy not mentioned in the Tax Pack last year?
__________________
Otokonoko is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 04:45 AM   #12
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 07:08 AM

dubya
__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 05:15 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
As long as the top 1% profit, who the fuck cares about everyone else?
indeed

and who cares about the 16,000 people injured or disabled for the rest of their lives?

the pain that this 1% inflicts upon the rest of the world is unforgivable.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 06:49 AM   #14
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 12:08 AM
Re: You have got to be kidding!

Quote:
Originally posted by fly so high!

maybe this war on terror will actually cost alot more than the said amount if the Iraqi goverment decides to sue the "Allies"!
I would very much like to see that! The day US leaves Iraq, the Iraqi government should sue them for invasion and occupation and god knows what other crimes! They should catch the US pants down.
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 06:01 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
onebloodonelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,106
Local Time: 04:08 PM
This number is just plain depressing. I saw a website once that showed what the money that is going towards the war effort could do if used towards other causes, you'd be amazed at what that much money can do. I should try to find that site again.
__________________

__________________
onebloodonelife is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com