Now they are trying to say the Iraq war is a bargain...

[liberal N proud]

Is the Iraq war a relative bargain?

Conflict a small piece of overall budget, but it’s being paid for with debt

NEW YORK - After four years, America’s cost for the war in Iraq has reached nearly $500 billion — more than the total for the Korean War and nearly as much as 12 years in Vietnam, adjusting for inflation. The ultimate cost could reach $1 trillion or more.

A lot of money? No question.

But even though the war has turned out to be much more expensive than Bush administration officials predicted on the eve of the March 2003 invasion, it is relatively affordable — at least in historical terms.

Iraq eats up less than 1 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, compared with as much as 14 percent for Vietnam and 9 percent for Korea.

Unusual payment method
For one thing, war funding for both Iraq and Afghanistan has come in the form of supplemental appropriations outside the normal federal budget process. Typically these “supplementals” are used to pay for unexpected emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina, and they receive much less scrutiny from Congress.

Paying on credit
Virtually every war in U.S. history has required the government to borrow at least some money, Hormats said. But Franklin D. Roosevelt also eliminated some New Deal programs and cut others to help pay for World War II (the most expensive of American wars, it cost more than $2 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars). Truman raised taxes and slashed domestic spending to help pay for Korea.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17665432/

[Olney Blue]

1. Maybe we can have another war and save some more money.

I wonder what the purpose of this article is- to silence complaints about the war being too expensive- to make us feel better about the guilt?

[Demit]

2. That really is a crappy piece of reasoning, in that piece.

Especially the part comparing the costs to the "what if" scenarios, had Saddam stayed in power. What a reach.

[malaise]

3. What were the figures Gore gave during the

2004 debates. Dumbya said he was overstating costs! Ah well. Run Al Run!!

[TerdlowSmedley]

4. The more you invade, the more you save!!!!

[billybob537]

5. Okay so devide $500 Billion

by several hundred thousand LIVES, OH YES thats some bargain FOR MURDERERS AND WAR CRIMINAL BUSHEE'S

[TreasonousBastard]

6. They go to U Chicago and rightwing thinktanks for this crap...

without any dissent?

And say paying with a credit card is cheaper than cash?

Pure bullshit.

[dogday]

7. If even one life is spent, then it is not a bargain

and never will be.. The price is being paid in blood, not money....

[Jonathan50]

8. Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has analyzed the cost of the Iraq war

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00138

<blockquote>This article originally appeared in the December 2006 issue of the Milken Institute Review.

In January, we estimated that the true cost of the Iraq war could reach $2 trillion, a figure that seemed shockingly high. But since that time, the cost of the war – in both blood and money – has risen even faster than our projections anticipated. More than 2,500 American troops have died and close to 20,000 have been wounded since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. And the $2 trillion number – the sum of the current and future budgetary costs along with the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East – now seems low.

One source of difficulty in getting an accurate picture of the direct cost of prosecuting the war is the way the government does its accounting. With “cash accounting,” income and expenses are recorded when payments are actually made – for example, what you pay off on your credit card today – not the amount outstanding. By contrast, with “accrual accounting,” income and expenses are recorded when the commitment is made. But, as Representative Jim Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee, notes, “The budget of the United States uses cash accounting, and only the tiniest businesses in America are even allowed to use cash accounting. Why? Because it gives you a very distorted picture.”

The distortion is particularly acute in the case of the Iraq war. The cash costs of feeding, housing, transporting and equipping U.S. troops, paying for reconstruction costs, repairs and replacement parts and training Iraqi forces are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Costs incurred, but not yet paid, dwarf what is being spent now – even when future anticipated outlays are converted back into 2006 dollars.

More:</blockquote>

[opihimoimoi]

9. 2 trillion plus $$$$...I believe it

The Bush guys have not been Conservative at all when it cames to spending....

[Lobster Martini]

10. At least Bush proved that Lawrence Lindsey was wrong

Remember Lawrence Lindsey? He was the economic adviser who was shoved out after he estimated that the cost of the Iraq war could reach $200 billion. Boy, were you wrong, Larry! (At the time, Rummy estimated the total cost to be in the range of $50-$60 billion.)

[lpbk2713]

11. Their way of trivializing their shameless lack of personal accountability.

Cold hard cash by the pallet load amounting to several millions of dollars is gone and no one has the slightest idea where it went to. And BushCo will continue to pour good money after bad into a bottomless pit as if it were play money.

[Jonathan50]

12. You misspelled "billions"

:)

[lpbk2713]

15. I stand corrected.

Nine Billion Dollars Missing


I was only thinking of one isolated incident out of many {Link}


"Who in their right mind would send 360 tons of cash into a war zone? But that is exactly what our government did," --- Waxman.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. Oh I'm sure some people in Bushco know where that cash went.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. No wonder they took out the anti-iran war provision of the latest supplemental!

It will save money if we attack Iran! A real bargain!

Or, if not, it will certainly MAKE money for the "defense" industry.

Killing is not only "fun" (as the general said) but good for the economy!

George Orwell and P.T. Barnum would love the reasoning.