8.4 billion dollars a month

[fastpat]

That's the cost to continue to make war against Iraq.

Pentagon sees U.S. war cost in Iraq rising
Thu 18 Jan 2007 23:35:17 GMT

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) - The steadily rising Iraq war price tag will reach about $8.4 billion a month this year, Pentagon spokesmen said on Thursday, as heavy replacement costs for lost, destroyed and aging equipment mount.

The Pentagon has been estimating last year's costs for the increasingly unpopular war at about $8 billion a month, having increased from a monthly "burn rate" of around $4.4 billion during the first year of fighting in fiscal 2003.

During testimony at a House Budget Committee hearing, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said that nearly four years into the war, the Pentagon's war costs were rising because it was having to replace big-ticket items such as helicopters, airplanes and armored vehicles that are wearing out or were lost in combat.

"We have a backlog and are seeing an increase," England told the panel.

When factoring in U.S. combat costs in Afghanistan, the Pentagon will spend about $9.7 billion a month during the fiscal year that ends on Sept. 30, according to Pentagon spokesmen.

Early next month, the administration is expected to ask Congress for a further $100 billion in "emergency" war money, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this year. The request comes as President George W. Bush has sketched out an increase of 21,500 U.S. troops in Iraq that could cost about $5.6 billion.

The article

[scottbombedout]

Hya Pat, didn't actually know that we were making war against Iraq anymore.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by scottbombedout
Hya Pat, didn't actually know that we were making war against Iraq anymore.

"We" aren't making war against Iraq, the US government is doing that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16722042/

[Aurel]

They must have cut down on coke from Halliburton. I started a thread that was $11Bn/month not long ago. Good to see our tax money being used more *efficiently*.

Aurel

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Aurel
They must have cut down on coke from Halliburton. I started a thread that was $11Bn/month not long ago. Good to see our tax money being used more *efficiently*.

Aurel

Your figure could be correct as well because the $8.4 billion number doesn't include regular appropriations for the military, money they'd spend with no war in progress at all. The $8.4 billion figure doesn't include Afghanistan either.

[Zef]

And no money for schools (education) and hospitals (health care)...and the depth is going to the moon...!

[munro86]

It's still a miniscule fraction of total govt spending.<1% I think.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by zefsuper911
And no money for schools (education) and hospitals (health care)...and the depth is going to the moon...!

I understand what you're saying, but the federal government in America has no authority to spend on schools. What it does spend is illegal.


The National Debt is something else again, that should be prohibited. The US government no longer has any need to borrow money, and the only reason it does is to pay interest to those that own the Federal Reserve.

If you want to do something interesting sometime, try to find out who all of the owners of the Federal Reserve are. Hint, it's not the Federal government.

[Rearden]

Pat,
How do the private bank owners of the Fed profit from this ownership?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rearden
Pat,
How do the private bank owners of the Fed profit from this ownership?

Interest is paid them. It's in all the newspapers from time to time. Look it up.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by fastpat
Interest is paid them. It's in all the newspapers from time to time. Look it up.

The private member banks must commit 6% of that bank's capital as an investment in the Reserve Banks -- its stock in the Fed system. These banks are paid a dividend set by law at 6% of the funds they have committed (invested) in the Reserve Bank. These dividends are fully taxable by federal and state governments.

Saying that the Federal Reserve is privately owned is a common anti-government and anti-capitalist conspiracy theory. In truth, the Federal Reserve has both public and private components. The private member banks are used to execute the government's monetary policy. The "stock" they hold in the Federal Reserve cannot be traded, sold, or pledged as collateral.

To imply that the Federal Reserve exists to enrich some select fat cats is either disingenuous or naive.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rearden
The private member banks must commit 6% of that bank's capital as an investment in the Reserve Banks -- its stock in the Fed system. These banks are paid a dividend set by law at 6% of the funds they have committed (invested) in the Reserve Bank. These dividends are fully taxable by federal and state governments.

Saying that the Federal Reserve is privately owned is a common anti-government and anti-capitalist conspiracy theory. In truth, the Federal Reserve has both public and private components. The private member banks are used to execute the government's monetary policy. The "stock" they hold in the Federal Reserve cannot be traded, sold, or pledged as collateral.

To imply that the Federal Reserve exists to enrich some select fat cats is either disingenuous or naive.

The Federal Reserve is privately owned, chartered by the federal government. It's been that way since its inception. There is, of course, no authorization for it's existence, but since billions are made from it, that's unlikely to cease anytime soon. The federal government could revoke its charter, true, but no one has the courage to do so.

Too bad we're unlikely to have a president with the fortitude to close the fed like Andrew Jackson did to the national bank.

[Rearden]

In 2005, $781 million was paid out as dividends to member banks (are you arguing that a 6% return on their capital is excessive?) and almost $21.5 billion was transferred to the US Treasury.

Every nationally chartered bank must join. These banks become members of their respective regional Reserve Banks. These banks have some control over how their regional Bank conducts operations, but has no control over the nation's monetary policy. This is set by the Board of Governors, a 7-member panel appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Fed is private and public. The private side executes the policies determined by the public side.

Pat, you really need to branch out and stop relying solely on your moonbat conspiracy websites for your education. At best, they tell only half the story.