The Iraq War has cost 3 trillion dollars

Was the Iraq War worth the cost (3 trillion)?


  • Total voters
    0
I must be delusional then. It sure looks to me as though these factors, displayed in the graph, took a dive in and around 2000-2001. The Iraq War began in 2003, has been going on now for five years, and yet the graph cuts off in 2004.

So, you are right...it is just me...:crazy:

so your think the graph started going up in 2005? :lol:
 
Yeah, I guess if you were part of the Clinton administration, your chances go up quite a bit...:p
 
It’s a documentary on the first submarine attack towards the US by Japan in WWII that helped escalate the run up to war. Critically acclaimed, It shows the differences of ideas and opinions of the Americans and Japanese from both viewpoints.

Thank you
 
Maybe they are wrong maybe they are right but I would hardly call two people everybody.
You must have watched this video, KB...
logic_in_100_minutes_hi-res_image.jpg

Maybe I can send a copy to Okla...
 
You must have watched this video, KB...
logic_in_100_minutes_hi-res_image.jpg

Maybe I can send a copy to Okla...

If given some evidence I would have to take it at face value, but to make a statement and then back it up with a list of books and articles by the same two people is not a good way of making your point. You could have read the front cover on your video on logic and gleamed enough insight for that.
 
Oh, the stuff I would do with $3 trillion.

Here's one idea. How about solving the Social Security fund shortfall? The shortfall is estimated to be only $3.7 trillion over a 75-year period. $3.0 trillion at the beginning of that period is WAY MORE than needed to solve the problem.

  • The Social Security and Medicare Trustees, a majority of whom are members of the President’s cabinet, project that the Social Security shortfall will amount to 0.65 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the U.S. economy) over the next 75 years. In dollar terms, the Trustees project the shortfall over the 75 year period at $3.7 trillion.[1]
 
I don't give a damn if it costs 6 trillion. We were attacked and nobody messes with us. There are things we have to do to ensure a future for our children and our childrens children. I'd say it is a humble offering at best.

Oh, my. Please, tell me you don't actually believe that we were attacked by Iraq.
 
Don't even try that. Terrorism has been prevalent in the entire Middle East for a long time and that includes Iraq. We had more reasons at the time to go into Iraq than just the WMD reason. Yes, even I know that getting oil is a reason as well. I don't see how helping secure resources for your country is a bad thing.

Unbelievable.
 
Why not be honest and say, you know what, we need the oil to fuel our way of life.

We are the United States and we need it..........
 
Here's one idea. How about solving the Social Security fund shortfall? The shortfall is estimated to be only $3.7 trillion over a 75-year period. $3.0 trillion at the beginning of that period is WAY MORE than needed to solve the problem.
  • The Social Security and Medicare Trustees, a majority of whom are members of the President’s cabinet, project that the Social Security shortfall will amount to 0.65 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the U.S. economy) over the next 75 years. In dollar terms, the Trustees project the shortfall over the 75 year period at $3.7 trillion.[1]
Social Security and Medicare are going to be $54 trillion in the hole in ten years. Throwing $3t at it now...nope, still going in the crapper in 2019.
 
Social Security and Medicare are going to be $54 trillion in the hole in ten years. Throwing $3t at it now...nope, still going in the crapper in 2019.

The only hope would be to get all the lazy, worthless people off their butts and start earning their own way. Even then I fear that the ship is still sunk.
 
Social Security and Medicare are going to be $54 trillion in the hole in ten years. Throwing $3t at it now...nope, still going in the crapper in 2019.

Your figures, like most of the rest of your arguments, are from fantasyland.

http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm#_ftn1

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees, a majority of whom are members of the President’s cabinet, project that the Social Security shortfall will amount to 0.65 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the U.S. economy) over the next 75 years. In dollar terms, the Trustees project the shortfall over the 75 year period at $3.7 trillion.[1]

The Trustees also project the cost of the Medicare drug benefit at 1.4 percent of GDP — or $8.1 trillion — over the same period. This is at least double the size of the Social Security shortfall.

Furthermore, the cost of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, if made permanent, is 1.95 percent of GDP — or $11.1 trillion — over the same period, or triple the size of the Social Security shortfall. (This projection of 1.95 percent of GDP is based on cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. It is similar to, but slightly smaller than, the projections of the long-term cost of the tax cuts made by economists Alan Auerbach, William Gale, and Peter Orszag.[2])

We should note that this comparison uses the Social Security projections of the Social Security Trustees. CBO, in contrast, projects that the Social Security shortfall will be only a little over half as large as the Trustees do; CBO places the shortfall at 0.35 percent of GDP over the 75-year period. If one uses the CBO projection of the Social Security shortfall rather than the Trustee’s projection, the cost of the tax cuts themselves is six times the size of the Social Security shortfall and the combined cost of the tax cuts and drug benefit is about ten times the size of the Social Security shortfall (see Table 1).

Conclusion

The President has suggested or implied that Social Security presents a greater budgetary problem than Medicare or his tax cuts, and that the Medicare prescription drug bill will help to reduce the overall cost of Medicare by averting unnecessary hospitalizations. Analysis conducted by the Social Security and Medicare Trustees and actuaries, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office, among others, show that such views are mistaken.

The reality is that the Social Security shortfall, while sizeable, is not gargantuan, and it is not necessary to alter Social Security’s basic structure to close the shortfall. Both rising health care costs, which drive much of the projected growth in Medicare costs, and the long-term cost of the President’s tax cuts pose much larger budgetary problems.


 
the best way to fix the Social Security problem is to partially privatize the system.

Bush's tax cuts increased revenues to the treasury, so I don't see how they created a "budgetary problem".
 
Oh, my. Please, tell me you don't actually believe that we were attacked by Iraq.

I believe we were attacked by terrorist that hate America, our freedom and our liberties. Iraq was being run by a dictatorship and the Iraqi people wanted out from under that so we help people acquire freedom and liberties.

Remember France helped us become free from Great Britain? It's one (if not THE ONE) of the greatest gestures one country can do for another. We (America) want the entire world to live free.

What's your problem?
 
I believe we were attacked by terrorist that hate America, our freedom and our liberties. Iraq was being run by a dictatorship and the Iraqi people wanted out from under that so we help people acquire freedom and liberties.

Remember France helped us become free from Great Britain? It's one (if not THE ONE) of the greatest gestures one country can do for another. We (America) want the entire world to live free.

What's your problem?

Gullible people that believe the load you're shoveling.
 
Your figures, like most of the rest of your arguments, are from fantasyland.
...and your source is from February, 2005!!!

Last time I checked, it was 2008.
Let me give you three numbers that will put this economic asteroid into perspective: $200 billion, $14.1 trillion, and $53 trillion.
  • $200 billion is the approximate total amount of write-downs announced so far as a result of the current credit crisis.
  • $14.1 trillion is the size of the entire U.S. economy
  • And $53 trillion is (drum roll please) the approximate size of this country's bill for the Social Security and Medicare promises we've made.While no one will ever mistake me for Alan Greenspan, it seems to me that the third number is quite a bit larger than the other two. It also seems very few people care.
    According to the latest Social Security and Medicare Trustees report (and I use that term loosely since it has the word "trust" in it) released earlier this week, the economic asteroid will first make impact in the year 2019 when the Medicaid trust fund becomes insolvent.
    Only an immediate 122 percent increase in Medicare taxes and a 26 percent increase in Social Security taxes can prevent (or more likely, delay) its impact.
Glenn Beck: The $53 trillion asteroid - CNN.com
Last call for Fantasyland...



 
I would perhaps find a more tactful way to approach the argument, but I think I understand what 423 is getting at and I feel the same way. We were not attacked by Iraq, no matter how you slice it, so using "we were attacked" as justification is flawed.
 

VN Store



Back
Top