$192,000,000,000
 

Does anyone think the new, incremental $20 billion being asked for will reflect the final cost for Afghanistan/Iraq?

that is insane

Re: $192,000,000,000
 

WTC cost the US $200bill.. and the whole world $300bill.
ROI for war may take 10yrs for US after business begins.
ROI for war may take much shorter time to coalition.
go figure

I thought it was $25 billion
 

Whatever, as some say these days.

So let me get this straight. Bush is asking congress to appropriate this much more money for the war on terrorism. To deny these funds would be un-American, un-patriotic, and would render those turning him down as un-fit to lead the country in this time of war. Do I have that about right?

Ed

Why do you even care? Isn't kerry going to make the "rich" pay all the taxes?

Just think of it as a rent to own payment . . .

wouldn't swtiching to gasahol have been a lot cheaper?

Nope.
it's obsoete with the '90s engine mgt systems so the added cost doesn't produce the old enviromental effect. NY is considering droping the alcohol due to cost and delivery disruptions.

The $35bill added gas cost so far this yr is 1/2 of the effective
$70bill added tax returns.. so the added gas cost this yr shouldn't have an effect till August..
then the real screaming begins due to the loss of consumer spending relative to last year's cost of gas.

Re: Re: $192,000,000,000
 

Does that include or exclude the 192b?

ok...let me go another take. Wouldn't switching to alcohol and hybrids have been cheaper? I recall hearing that Henry Ford originally envisioned cars running on alcohol...

Buring organic materials derived from agriculture could eventually replace all petroleum sources.

Its one of the most effective ways of using solar energy.

Re: Re: Re: $192,000,000,000
 

only the cost of WTC + disruptions + added costs airfare, stock mkt, etc

so the 192b is a cost of war, so far.

From an article about the extra $25 billion:

But Republicans said the $25 billion request could benefit the president by highlighting his commitment to the troops and by forcing the Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, to cast a difficult defense spending vote at the height of the campaign.

I've heard of buying votes, but this appears to be more like asking voters to pay for their own vote. $100 each please.

In all seriousness, given the (surely high) correlation between being a republican and having lotsa money, I wonder what the war is actually costing the average republican taxpayer?

I think I calculated that the war cost (invasion and occupation, not including reconstruction) was appx 5% of the federal budget in 2003. So arguably 5% of the average individual tax liability went to this adventure in Iraq (unless you want to argue that the money is actually coming from future years' taxes, since we're deficit-spending . . . ) So, the average taxpayer's income X 30% (effective federal tax rate) x 5% (pct of federal budget devoted to Iraq) = cost of war in 2003 to average taxpayer.

...costing the average republican taxpayer?
 

Not sure that question can be answered and verified. Cam, there are plenty of republicans, or more correctly, I should say, Bush supporters, in the lower income brackets. The division is not as totally fiscal as you maybe imagine.

When I saw your question, I was going to reply, snappily, I thought, that the republicans were not paying as high a price in sons and daughters. But that is not true. Lots of lower income conservatives have lost family members, of that I am sure.

I am also sure conservatives feel that whatever the final bill is, it is a good investment in a secure and prosperous future. Not necessarily mine, but theirs.

Ed

"So, the average taxpayer's income X 30% (effective federal tax rate) x 5% (pct of federal budget devoted to Iraq) = cost of war in 2003 to average taxpayer."

Except that there is no 'payoff rate' in effect, so the interest charges could easily triple the amount stated. No worries, The grandkids will pay.

Who will they pay it to? . .the Iraqies? . . .to some big bank in the sky?

Please don't tell me you're so naïve to believe that "The grandkids will pay. "

I'll tell ya what, how about we prevent another mass killing, such as 9/11, to provide some grand-children to exist . . . as payment to our grandkids for the debt they are inheriting.:rolleyes:

Saddam was bankrolling suicde bombers - fact.
Saddam had unaccounted for WMD - fact.

If you want to talk about 'debt left to grandchildren,' start considering our country pot-marked with broken cities, collapsed infrastucture, and would-be grandparents dead before they can have children. -- now that is a burden.

umm...I hate to tell you but that describes a fair amount of the country even *before* 9/11. So instead of fixing that we're spending a trillion dollars "making us safe".

"Who will they pay it to? . .the Iraqies? . . .to some big bank in the sky?"

Somebody better break it to the Republicans that we borrow the money from other countries and pay interest on it.

Somehow they collectively became unhinged under Reagan.

I'm quite certain that things can get much MUCH worse.

On 9/11 people where saying something about 'waking a sleeping giant'
Now we effectively have people wanting to lull the giant back to sleep with some bedtime fantasy stories of a war hero scratched. . er. . wounded 3x in six months, 30 years ago.