"'Mission Accomplished', that'll be $2,700,000,000,000 please"

[Porsche-O-Phile]

2.7 TRILLION dollars for this debacle.

Un-frikkin'-real.

That's enough to build almost 2,000 replacements for that B2 that crashed, or about 19.3 BILLION barrels of light sweet crude oil (today's price). Or rebuild New Orleans after 13 more Hurricane Katrinas. Or buy a "charming" 900 sq. ft. bungalow in Orange County.

2.7 TRILLION.

Madness.

And at the end of it, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden are still out there and we're less postured to fight them. Way to go.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/iraq_war_hearing/index.htm?cnn=yes

- - - - -

Iraq war could cost taxpayers $2.7 trillion

In addition to the cost of war, taxpayers pay for rising veteran health care costs, and returning soldiers faced with foreclosure and unemployment.

By David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: June 12, 2008: 12:20 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As the Iraq war continues with no clear end in sight, the cost to taxpayers may balloon to $2.7 trillion by the time the conflict comes to an end, according to Congressional testimony.

In a hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee Thursday, members of Congress heard testimony about the current costs of the war and the future economic fallout from returning soldiers.

At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. But the battle has been dragging on much longer than most in the government expected, and costs have ballooned to nearly ten times the original estimate.

William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis, told members of Congress that the Iraq war has already cost taxpayers $646 billion. That's only accounting for five years, and, with the conflict expected to drag on for another five years, the figure is expected to more than quadruple. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told members of Congress that the war costs taxpayers about $430 million per day, and called out the Bush Administration.

"It is long past time for the administration to come clean and account for the real costs of the war in Iraq," said Schumer. "If they want to disagree with our estimates or with other experts ... fine - they should come and explain why."

The Bush Administration, which was invited to give testimony, declined to participate.

The Pentagon has previously said that the war costs approximately $9.5 billion a month, but some economists say the figure is closer to $25 billion a month when long-term health care for veterans and interest are factored in.

Health care: In testimony before the committee, Dr. Christine Eibner, an Associate Economist with research firm RAND, said advances in armor technology have kept alive many soldiers who would have been killed in prior wars. But that has added to post-war health care costs for veterans, especially for "unseen" wounds like post traumatic stress disorder, major depression and traumatic brain injury.

Two-year post-deployment health care costs for the 1.6 million service members currently in Iraq and Afghanistan could range from $4 billion to $6.2 billion, according to Eibner. For one year of treatment, the costs are substantially lower, ranging from $591 million to $910 million. Eibner admitted that the study did not take into account long term care, and her estimates probably underestimate the total costs.

However, Eibner noted that an increasing number of soldiers are not seeking the care that they need, which affects their ability to get and maintain jobs. And, that, she said, must change.

"Many service members are currently reluctant to seek mental health treatment due to fear of negative career repercussions," said Eibner. "Policies must be changed so that there are no perceived or real adverse career consequences for individuals who seek treatment."

Unemployment: Furthermore, many veterans who recently completed their service are coming back to a difficult job and housing market.

Among veterans who completed their service within the last 1 to 3 years, 18% were unemployed, and 25% earned less than $21,840 a year, according to a recent report commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

"Trying to convince [job interviewers] that my service will translate into skills ... at a bottling factory or a distributing company is almost like you're speaking French to someone who doesn't speak French," said Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America policy associate Tom Tarantino.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer agreed, saying the government does a poor job at readying veterans for post-Army life.

"We haven't figured out how to convert a warrior to a citizen yet," Schweitzer told the committee.

Foreclosure: Many soldiers who come home from active duty are also finding difficulty keeping their homes.

"Military families are already shouldering heavy burdens to care for and support families while their loved ones are serving abroad or recovering at home," said Schumer. "Knowing that so many more are losing their homes to foreclosure is heartbreaking -- and its just plain wrong."

The senator said that Army personnel returning from duty are at a 37% higher risk of foreclosure, because the areas populated by military families have substantially larger foreclosure rates.

"Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan deserve better," testified Tarantino.

Tarantino recommended Congress quickly sign into law an update to the World War II GI Bill, which would help ease the economic hardships returning solders are feeling.

"More than any other single piece of legislation, the GI Bill will make a difference in the economic futures of the troops returning every day from Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

[livi]

Yes, truly madness and surrealistic waste of resources.

Do you take a personal check..??

[Zef]

and counting...! China as the prime financer of that is very happy.

[rouxroux]

Jeff, please give me a finite figure on what the cost of your freedom is worth.

[competentone]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

2.7 TRILLION dollars for this debacle.

But the article says:

William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis, told members of Congress that the Iraq war has already cost taxpayers $646 billion. That's only accounting for five years, and, with the conflict expected to drag on for another five years, the figure is expected to more than quadruple.

If it cost $646 billion for the first 5 years, I don't quite see the logic for the "quadruple" figure for the next 5 years -- if we are in the area to the same level for that period of time. The "invasion" was the really expensive part; "maintenance" after an invasion is usually a lot less expensive.

I'm no "fan" of the war, but now that we've exposed the fact that Iraq is an extremely weak nation (Sadam was bluffing about his military capabilities), I don't see how we can leave the area without Iran immediately walking into Iraq and taking the country over (with unbelievable slaughter of the population for whatever resistance the Iraqis offered).

I'm not sure what you propose we do? Are you saying we should just "pull out" and let Iran over-run the country? Should we pull out, but threaten to obliterate Iran with air strikes and missile attacks if it invades Iraq? How much would such "protection" cost? Would it be effective in stopping Iran?

You can look back and say "we never should have invaded," but what's done is done. My question is, what do you propose we do right now.

What exactly is your solution for the situation?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by rouxroux

Jeff, please give me a finite figure on what the cost of your freedom is worth.

Priceless.

The war in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Nothing. In fact I'd say I'm $2.7T less free today than before this mess because opportunities for me in this country are being (and have been) compromised as a result of the capital outlay for this mess.

Do I think some things are worth fighting/dying for? Absolutely. Freedom is one of them. But this has nothing to do with my freedom. If it did, I wouldn't complain about it.

[Jim727]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Priceless.

The war in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Nothing. In fact I'd say I'm $2.7T less free today than before this mess because opportunities for me in this country are being (and have been) compromised as a result of the capital outlay for this mess.

Do I think some things are worth fighting/dying for? Absolutely. Freedom is one of them. But this has nothing to do with my freedom. If it did, I wouldn't complain about it.

Bulls-eye.

[m21sniper]

I do not believe the US gov't has any intention of pulling out of Iraq in any case, under any circumstances.

I don't think us being in Iraq has to do with us winning anymore. I think it has to do with us getting long term basing rights on Iraqi soil.

I believe that viewed objectively, we are as close to an actual victory as we're going to get, and withdrawal should begin. The Iraqi Gov't and Army is ready to stand on it's own, and i believe our continued presence only fans the flames of discontent and resentment. Time to go, long term basing is a double edged sword at best. If we leave today, we can at this point honestly claim victory in Iraq tomorrow.

IMO, of course.

PS: Iraq's neighbors will not sit by and let Iran take it over. I actually suspect Saudi Arabia would prefer to see us stay so we can (once again) take care of their regional security concerns for them.

[vash]

damn! that could put a fence around this country complete with watch towers manned by marines. then take the leftovers, and put a solar panel on every american home for free. that is alot of zeros.

[Jim727]

It could also have gone a long way toward removing oil dependency so we have no inclination to revisit this folly again in the future. Spend money at home to build infrastructure and independence. There's a wild idea.

[RoninLB]

nothing mentioned about the difference in costs if Congressional Dems and mass media wasn't terrorist supporters.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

the irony of course is that this money was spent making Iran and terrorists across the region stronger. George Bush just used our U.S. tax dollars to strengthen our enemies. Good job Republicans!

[Jim Richards]

It's only money.

[Superman]

It has been MASSIVELY expensive. And....it has made America less secure. But you guys are forgetting some of the other benefits. For example, we've lost worldwide credibility.

I actually, honestly believe it would have been almost impossible to screw this country up more than George Bush has done. That is what I actually think. He couldn't have damaged America more if he had tried.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Superman

I actually, honestly believe it would have been almost impossible to screw this country up more than George Bush has done. That is what I actually think. He couldn't have damaged America more if he had tried.

Sad but true!

[Aurel]

Originally Posted by competentone

But the article says:

If it cost $646 billion for the first 5 years, I don't quite see the logic for the "quadruple" figure for the next 5 years -- if we are in the area to the same level for that period of time. The "invasion" was the really expensive part; "maintenance" after an invasion is usually a lot less expensive.

Ya know, it is like when you maxed your credits cards and can only make minimum payments: the interest keeps adding up, and you still own that big mansion that you can`t get rid of anymore cause it ain`t worth nuthin...

Aurel

[K. Roman]

Will the right wing please chime in!!!

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by K. Roman

Will the right wing please chime in!!!

I did.

[Jim Sims]

How much longer would the war continue if it's further financing was paid for by a 50% income tax surcharge on incomes say over $150,000 or so? If that happened I bet the boy's would be home by Christmas with the heavy ordinance turned over to the locals or destroyed in the depots.

[RoninLB]

there is only right and wrong... and clueless whining without facts is demeaning.


this train never sleeps. It's not static, it's dynamic. If you want to sound like you have 1/2 a clue comment on a future plan. Even Mule could figure out that if you want to have a coherent energy policy the only way to accomplish that today, with its political dynamic, is to hang Congressional Dems by a rope at all refineries.

ie: nothing will change till there's widespread crisis.