English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071024/pl_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc

Does this explain why neo-conservative fiscal policies have always been a dismal failure? Their priorities are 180 out of sync with reality.

2007-10-24 11:44:36 · 14 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government Politics

andy g (below) GOP led Congress 2000 - 2006. As I said, neo-con fiscal policies are a dismal failure.

2007-10-24 11:55:25 · update #1

- Under Bush - (above)

2007-10-24 11:56:04 · update #2

14 answers

inflation huh?

2007-10-24 11:47:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Agreed.

Between Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 they are responsible for 70% of the current national debt with that percentage to continue to rise through the end of Bush 43's term.

What I find both saddening and interesting is that of the $2.4 trillion, $700 billion will be in accrued interest, which is more than Bush has spent on the war to date. So 5 years in and the US isn't even 1/2 way there yet.

2007-10-24 18:51:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Try reading the link


So far, Congress has given Bush $604 billion for the two wars, with about $412 billion spent in Iraq, according to CBO, which is Congress' in-house budget analyst. In Iraq alone, the United States is spending about $11 billion a month, with costs escalating


Magic word is "congress"

2007-10-24 18:48:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

New York Counts Cost of 9/11
The terrorist attack of September 11 could cost New York up to $95bn (£60bn), according to the city's own independent financial watchdog.
The terrorist attack of September 11 could cost New York up to $95bn (£60bn), according to the city's own independent financial watchdog, making it more expensive than America's largest ever natural disaster.
City comptroller William Thompson estimates that America's financial capital has lost 83,000 jobs over the past year. In a report out yesterday he added that prospects for an estimated 63,000 new jobs were erased when last September's fledgling recovery on Wall Street was undermined by the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
The city's jobless rate - at 7.7% in July - is already higher than the national rate of 5.9%.
Mr Thompson reckons it will cost the city almost $22bn to replace the buildings, infrastructure and other amenities destroyed when two hijacked commercial airliners were flown into the twin towers.
The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and forced the New York stock exchange to close for six days. Many high-profile financial institutions had to relocate from Manhattan to New Jersey.
The collapse of the towers and the damage to property in the Wall Street area removed almost 13m sq ft [1.2m sq metres] of office space from downtown Manhattan.
As well as the cost of the clean-up and rebuilding work, New York has lost nearly $3bn in taxes as companies moved out of Manhattan into temporary accommodation in New Jersey.
The city is likely to have to pick up the tab for $500m in unreimbursed expenses, according to Mr Thompson's calculations.
The financial effects of the September 11 attacks far outweigh the most expensive natural disaster in US history. In 1992 Hurricane Andrew raged across the southern tip of Florida, killing 28 people and causing more than $25bn worth of damage.
New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has already warned that taxes may have to be increased if the city is unable to secure more federal aid as it struggles with a forecast budget deficit next year of $5bn.
Mr Thompson, however, has already made it plain that he will not allow the city to relax its fiscal rules, for fear that New York will find itself repeating the financial crisis that forced the city close to bankruptcy in the 1970s.
Although the terrorist attacks have altered the priorities of New York's politicians Mr Thompson has also made it plain that the city must not forget the need for housing for low and middle-income people in parts of the city.

2007-10-24 19:01:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Scuttlebutt had it we could have bought Saddam and sent him into exile for a paltry 1 Billion...what a bargain!

2007-10-24 18:47:21 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 2 1

Chi guy, dont you get tired of blaming Bush for everything?? Congress were the ones that gave him the money for the war. Bush is not the all powerful man you think he is.

2007-10-24 18:54:50 · answer #6 · answered by Johnny Conservative 5 · 2 3

How's it going Obama? Long time, no speak.

Inflation? Seriously, when you throw in all of the terrorists and insurgents we are taking out, it is a bargain.

2007-10-24 18:48:46 · answer #7 · answered by Dude 6 · 1 1

Bush decided it was a good time for America to flex its military muscles, so he took us on a spending spree, after implementing tax cuts. Worst president in American history.

2007-10-24 18:47:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Saddam is dead, so I seriously doubt the money is for him. Besides, what does Steve Austin have to do with anything?

2007-10-24 18:48:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Inflation?

2007-10-24 18:47:33 · answer #10 · answered by Robert S 7 · 2 2

That damn Oscar Goldman and his special projects.

2007-10-24 18:56:50 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers