Skip to main content

Someone posted this on another forum.  Interesting article:

 

http://www.project-syndicate.o.../stiglitz142/English

 

NEW YORK – The September 11, 2001, terror attacks by Al Qaeda were meant to harm the United States, and they did, but in ways that Osama bin Laden probably never imagined. President George W. Bush’s response to the attacks compromised America’s basic principles, undermined its economy, and weakened its security.

 

The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable, but the subsequent invasion of Iraq was entirely unconnected to Al Qaeda – as much as Bush tried to establish a link. That war of choice quickly became very expensive – orders of magnitude beyond the $60 billion claimed at the beginning – as colossal incompetence met dishonest misrepresentation.

 

Indeed, when Linda Bilmes and I calculated America’s war costs three years ago, the conservative tally was $3-5 trillion. Since then, the costs have mounted further. With almost 50% of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans’ medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health-care costs will total $600-900 billion. But the social costs, reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups, are incalculable.

 

Even if Bush could be forgiven for taking America, and much of the rest of the world, to war on false pretenses, and for misrepresenting the cost of the venture, there is no excuse for how he chose to finance it. His was the first war in history paid for entirely on credit. As America went into battle, with deficits already soaring from his 2001 tax cut, Bush decided to plunge ahead with yet another round of tax “relief” for the wealthy.

 

Today, America is focused on unemployment and the deficit. Both threats to America’s future can, in no small measure, be traced to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Increased defense spending, together with the Bush tax cuts, is a key reason why America went from a fiscal surplus of 2% of GDP when Bush was elected to its parlous deficit and debt position today. Direct government spending on those wars so far amounts to roughly $2 trillion – $17,000 for every US household – with bills yet to be received increasing this amount by more than 50%.

 

Moreover, as Bilmes and I argued in our book The Three Trillion Dollar War, the wars contributed to America’s macroeconomic weaknesses, which exacerbated its deficits and debt burden. Then, as now, disruption in the Middle East led to higher oil prices, forcing Americans to spend money on oil imports that they otherwise could have spent buying goods produced in the US.

 

But then the US Federal Reserve hid these weaknesses by engineering a housing bubble that led to a consumption boom. It will take years to overcome the excessive indebtedness and real-estate overhang that resulted....

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I agree with everything in that article except the part that we were harmed in ways ben Laden couldn't think of. His stated reason for the attack was to inflict financial damage on the US to the point of bringing us down (in fiscal matters)

Bush was more than happy to co-operate in the financial ruin we have seen in the last decade.

"With almost 50% of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans’ medical facilities"

 

As the number of wounded is under 33,000 the 600,000 is not realistic.  Also, 50 percent of returnees are not drawing disability payments.

 

Where in the federal budget are these trillions reported as war costs?

 

According to the Center for Defense Information, the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach $1.29 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2011.

 In billions of budgeted dollars
OperationFY
2001+ 2002
FY
20031
FY
20042
FY
20053
FY
2006
FY
2007
FY
2008
FY
2009
FY
2010
FY
2011
Total
Iraq $53.0$75.9$85.5$101.6$131.2$142.1$95.5$65.9$51.1$802
Afghanistan20.814.714.520.019.039.243.559.5104.9119.4455.4
Enhanced security13.08.03.72.10.80.5.1.1.1.128.6
Unable to allocate 5.5        5.5
Totals$33.8$81.2$94.1$107.6$121.4$170.9$185.7$155.1$171.0$170.7$1,291.5
1. Includes $5.5 billion of $7.1 billion appropriated in DOD's FY2003 Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-48) for the global war on terror that CRS cannot allocate and DOD cannot track.
2. Of the $25 billion provided in Title IX of the FY2005 DOD appropriation bill, CRS includes $2 billion in FY2004 when it was obligated and the remaining $23 billion in FY2005. Because Congress made the funds available in FY2004, CBO and OMB score all $25 billion in FY2004.
3. Includes funds in the FY2007 Supplemental (H.R. 2206/P.L. 110-28), Title IX, P.L. 109-289, FY2007 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 5631) designated for war and funds for other agencies in H.J. Res 20, P.L. 110-50, the year-long Continuing Resolution. VA Medical estimates reflect VA FY2008 budget materials and CRS estimates. Amounts for foreign and diplomatic operations reflects State Department figures.


Read more: Estimated War-Related Costs, Iraq and Afghanistan — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/...5.html#ixzz1XH4YUmLp

The $1.3Trillion doesnt include increases to the Pentagon base budget due to initiatives created by the wars.  Much of the R&D going on in HSV is a result of such spending. That spending is somewhere between $500 and $700billion over the last decade. 

Plus the interest on the money since 100% of the costs are borrowed money, which currently amounts to about $200billion/year, FOREVER.  

Also not included is the DHS, DNI and TSA costs, which come to about $500billion so far, and will cost $200billion/year, FOREVER. 

Originally Posted by b50m:

And one Obama stimulus was 862 Billion, with interest FOREVER!


I guess BushIIe should not have cut taxes during wartime, the first incidence of such blatant fiscal irresponsibility in history of the USA. 

 

Iraq and Astan will go on forever, just Vietnam, Korea and Germany.  The only was to be the worlds police force is to use deficit spending.  If a few Americans werent getting rich off the proceeds of such spending, it would end today. 

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The tax cut generated additional revenue, therefore that argument is neither sound, not logical.  Other expenses should have been cut.  Also, an excise tax limited to a certain amount might prove beneficial to paying down war debt.  I'd suggest trading in precious metals


.


The brainwash is strong in your case.

 

The BushIIe Tax Cuts resulted in decreased revenues for 4 years over the revenues of the year 2000.  Years 2005, 2006, and 2007 resulted in revenues greater than 2000, but because of spending increases still yielded annual budget deficits of about $400billion per year. 

 

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Ditzy,

 

Speaking of brainwashing, you only required a light rinse.  While admiting the revenues increased after taxes were cut, you agree that spending increased, which resulted in higher deficits.  Without the tax cuts, the deficits would be larger.


You're still wrong.

Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP were 20.6% in Y2000, and in Y2005 when revenues recovered to Y2000 levels they were only 17.3%.  The revenue has to represent a measure of economic activity or deficits are inevitable. 

The BushIIe WHite House made the same claim that you are still making, but it is and was false.  Revenues declined because rates were lowered.   Clinton raised taxes and revenues increased. 

You can keep trying but math will continue to prove you wrong

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×