When I was reading the latest 75 BIL, 51 BIL, 45 BIL #'s & then 87 BIL for are war on terrorism & nation building I was speechless.

 

These numbers still get a a rise out of me.

 

Did you know when it's all said & done Afghan & Iraq will have cost us 300+ BIL?

 

I feel like I'm living in Bizzaro world.

Did you know when it's all said & done Afghan & Iraq will have cost us 300+ BIL?

It's going to cost alot more than that. Not to mention the valuable loss of human life. That's hard to put a dollar amout on.

 

One thing we should have learned by now: bush is not exactly good with figures. This was going to be a quick war. There are WMD's. Something about nuclear weapons from Lybia. How many of those were true?

 

He'll say whatever he want's, manipulate facts, to get his desired outcome. I guess that's what makes him a good politician.

He'll say whatever he want's, manipulate facts, to get his desired outcome.  I guess that's what makes him a good politician.

What you said is very very very true. And for a little more Iraq news, I found this:

 

As reported by the anti-Saddam and anti-US occupation Iraq Freedom Party, surveys of undertakers, hospital officials, etc., have revealed that the civilian death toll is much higher than official estimates, numbering a horrific 37,137.

 

And of course, nobody is going to hold Chimpy McWarCrimes accountable for his actions if we don't find WMD, we don't find Saddam etc. etc. etc.

 

I think Hitler said it best about the masses of people who swallow the government swill when he proclaimed "How fortunate it is for governments that the people they administer don't think."

When I was reading the latest 75 BIL, 51 BIL, 45 BIL #'s & then 87 BIL for are war on terrorism & nation building I was speechless.

 

These numbers still get a a rise out of me.

 

Did you know when it's all said & done Afghan & Iraq will have cost us 300+ BIL?

 

I feel like I'm living in Bizzaro world. 

This is a $6+ trillion economy. Plus $82 billion or so of that had ALREADY been accounted for in the 2004 budget. It was just a chance for the talking heads to yell about an economy of which they have no idea how it works.

This is a $6+ trillion economy.  Plus $82 billion or so of that had ALREADY been accounted for in the 2004 budget.  It was just a chance for the talking heads to yell about an economy of which they have no idea how it works.

The 2003 budget actually has $0 to Afghanistan in it. When Rummy was questioned he said "We lowballed it."

 

So we have to make up for that. And we have to make up for the billions that we have ALREADY spent in the unneeded Iraq war. How many billion is it up to right now?

 

We already have a what...$600 billion deficit and increasing every day? Even George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics says that the Bush plan is the "worst fiscal policy in the last 200 years." And I think a Nobel laureate knows what he's talking about. [editorial note: last comment, not meant to be snide, just pointing out....don't need this to go into a flame war]

The 2003 budget actually has $0 to Afghanistan in it.  When Rummy was questioned he said "We lowballed it."

 

So we have to make up for that.  And we have to make up for the billions that we have ALREADY spent in the unneeded Iraq war.  How many billion is it up to right now?

 

We already have a what...$600 billion deficit and increasing every day?  Even George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics says that the Bush plan is the "worst fiscal policy in the last 200 years."  And I think a Nobel laureate knows what he's talking about.  [editorial note: last comment, not meant to be snide, just pointing out....don't need this to go into a flame war]

That is not true. The Trib had a big article on a Road the US was building that had some numbers in it.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-030...1,2411710.story

 

This is the article that includes the quotes of the effects of the $87 billion on the deficit.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-030...1,6409414.story

 

 

As for Bush's "economic" policy, yes it sucks. But for completely different reasons than you are talking about. Trickle down economices doesn't work in a recesionary or recoving economy. Spending and capacity utilization have to be at near ideal levels for this type of tax cut to work. And the sad thing is, I have always been on the conservative side of things when it comes to econ, but this is just garbage.

The 2003 budget actually has $0 to Afghanistan in it.  When Rummy was questioned he said "We lowballed it."

 

So we have to make up for that.  And we have to make up for the billions that we have ALREADY spent in the unneeded Iraq war.  How many billion is it up to right now?

 

We already have a what...$600 billion deficit and increasing every day?  Even George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics says that the Bush plan is the "worst fiscal policy in the last 200 years."  And I think a Nobel laureate knows what he's talking about.  [editorial note: last comment, not meant to be snide, just pointing out....don't need this to go into a flame war]

That is not true. The Trib had a big article on a Road the US was building that had some numbers in it.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-030...1,2411710.story

 

This is the article that includes the quotes of the effects of the $87 billion on the deficit.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-030...1,6409414.story

 

 

As for Bush's "economic" policy, yes it sucks. But for completely different reasons than you are talking about. Trickle down economices doesn't work in a recesionary or recoving economy. Spending and capacity utilization have to be at near ideal levels for this type of tax cut to work. And the sad thing is, I have always been on the conservative side of things when it comes to econ, but this is just garbage.

The official draft of the budget from Bush had $0 for Afghanistan. It was later changed after Rummy made that idiot comment, I should have clarified that. [i'm on a vicodin right now for wisdom teeth stuff so I'm not 100%]

 

I am right along with you that trickle down sucks ass.

 

And let's not forget all those "patriotic" corporations that move their base of operations address to the Cayman Islands to avoid US taxes. Even NUKE_CLEVELAND said: I can't stand that s***, you're right about that.

The 2003 budget actually has $0 to Afghanistan in it.  When Rummy was questioned he said "We lowballed it."

 

So we have to make up for that.  And we have to make up for the billions that we have ALREADY spent in the unneeded Iraq war.  How many billion is it up to right now?

 

We already have a what...$600 billion deficit and increasing every day?  Even George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics says that the Bush plan is the "worst fiscal policy in the last 200 years."  And I think a Nobel laureate knows what he's talking about.  [editorial note: last comment, not meant to be snide, just pointing out....don't need this to go into a flame war]

That is not true. The Trib had a big article on a Road the US was building that had some numbers in it.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-030...1,2411710.story

 

This is the article that includes the quotes of the effects of the $87 billion on the deficit.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-030...1,6409414.story

 

 

As for Bush's "economic" policy, yes it sucks. But for completely different reasons than you are talking about. Trickle down economices doesn't work in a recesionary or recoving economy. Spending and capacity utilization have to be at near ideal levels for this type of tax cut to work. And the sad thing is, I have always been on the conservative side of things when it comes to econ, but this is just garbage.

The official draft of the budget from Bush had $0 for Afghanistan. It was later changed after Rummy made that idiot comment, I should have clarified that. [i'm on a vicodin right now for wisdom teeth stuff so I'm not 100%]

 

I am right along with you that trickle down sucks ass.

 

And let's not forget all those "patriotic" corporations that move their base of operations address to the Cayman Islands to avoid US taxes. Even NUKE_CLEVELAND said: I can't stand that s***, you're right about that.

IF the government really wanted to make a statement to those corporations they would lean on the SEC to pass a bylaw that for a stock to trade on a US exchange it has to be based in the US. With the threat of capital trying up, they would come back to the states real quick. But there is no politician with the guts to make a move like that.

 

But the problem is that the US worker has priced himself out of the world market. We want cheap goods, high paying jobs, and high stock prices, which is economically impossible, while keeping all 3 in the US. We make our choices of what to buy, and if we as a country are going to buy cheap foriegn goods, companies will seek out cheaper labor to be able to compete with these companies on price point.

Just read this today.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...,1,729990.story

 

 

It gives a figure of $104 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afganistan combined in 2004. So if you subtract out the $87 bil for Iraq, that leaves $17B for Afganistan.