Tuesday, November 13, 2007

War Cost = Estimated $1.6 TRILLION by 2009

I found an interesting article on cnn that estimated war cost in Iraq and Afghanistan to be $1.6 trillion by 2009. It also estimated the war cost to be $3.5 trillion by 2017. Although I knew that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan would be costly, but not this costly. The war is not the only costly issue going on right now; there are other issues such as lost productivity, higher oil prices, and the cost of health care. We, the taxpayers, have to pay for all these costs.

After reading the estimated cost of the war, how do you guys feel about our war in the Middle East?

14 comments:

natalie g said...

that price is outrageous. it is uneccesary for us to be spending that much on a war. we should be promoting peace, and spending our money on people who need it, like sick children or poor schools. i personally do not want my tax money spent killing people, including innocent Americans.

benji said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
robbie armstrong said...

That number is huge. If we would of instead of funded for fighting in Iraq spent that money for the people of our country we could have fixed a lot of problems. especially when people talk about kids not being able to kid medical care. This just shows how bad of an idea the war actually was for us.

Paul Slack said...

I agree that the 1.6 trillion dollars is a too much money to be spending on a so-called "unnecessary war." But pullling the troops out of Iraq immediately is not an option. Leaving now would be leaving the country in turmoil and undoing all the progressions that the U.S. has made in Iraq. All the money spent would have been for nothing. So, the U.S. has to establish order and stabilize the region before it can leave Iraq. A larger crisis will be on America's hands if it leaves immediately. Hopefully though, U.S. leaves before 2007.

Ziva said...

Yeah, over a trillion dollars spent on this war. It's a ton of money. However, the cost of the war never changed my opinion about the war. I've never agreed with it because I knew that once we went into Iraq, it would be impossible to get out without causing a civil war. So to me, it was already pointless. But the extreme cost of the war only supported my decision of being against the war. However, we all must remember that all wars are expensive. But I think the cost of this war has upset people more than usual because most people think it is pointless to begin with and that there are so many other programs that need funding. For example, healthcare, education, welfare, etc.
But even though I’m against the war, I’m still for protecting our troops. And instead of being negative about the war and thinking “Gosh, this war sucks”, we should be more supportive of our troops and say “Let’s protect our troops and bring them home”.

Zack Mar said...

Indeed, at first glance, the cost of this war seems tremendous. I recently read that the price for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total as much as $2.4 trillion through the next decade, roughly $8,000 per citizen in the United States.
It seems rather unfair to me that the funding for these wars are in the form of supplements outside of the federal budget process. In slight accordance with Natalie, I beleive that the supplemental appopriations from the government should be spent on domestic issues like poverty or disaster relief, not war. This will additionally cap the spending on wars as the governemnt must abide by the federal budget.

However, if seen in historical contrast with previous war costs, the price seems reasonably affordable. The war in Iraq takes up less than one percent of the nation's gross domestic product, while the wars in Vietnam and Korea took as much as 14 percent and 9 percent respectively. Also, we musn't forget that liberty, especially that which is given in America, comes at a very high price. In this case, unfortunently, war is what we have to pay for (though I do beleive that the Iraq war in particular was unnecessary).

Furthermore, I agree with Ziva that we must be supportive and we must not make a bad situation worse..

Anonymous said...

That is pretty interesting, 1.6 trillion gone in Iraq in 6 years, and 3.5 trillion by 14 years. it doesn't sound like it'll be helping the U.S. much if our war there continues that long. and it can't be good for the Iraqis to have 14 years of war either. I dont think it will last 14 years though, by then we'd have changed presidencies twice and hopefully one of them will be able to get us out of iraq.

Farrah Ng said...

allen,
i looked up the article you were talking about (for the reference of others, it's http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/index.html) and looking at the raw figures is good, but it also neglects some of the other economic effects of the war.

the article also talks about how
"higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, lost productivity, higher oil prices and the cost of health care for veterans" which is very true. for those that believe we shouldn't retreat out of iraq immediately and those who believe we should, no matter what, it's more than the amount of money spent on the war itself that should be considered. the war will create lasting effects and take its toll on our country at home.

As all wars, this war in Iraq is extremely expensive. Personally, I have never supported the war but I would understand it more if I could see the results. People there hate us and even the newly appointed leaders don't seem very competent. I remember hearing over the news over the summer that it was too hot so the country's new leaders took a 3-week vacation at a summer retreat while our troops were suffering and being killed.

William Chen said...

1.6 trillion? That's a lot of money we are wasting/going to waste on a war that isn't going anywhere. That money could have been used on so many different things, like education, science research, and social security. So many kinds of problems we are having could be solved with that 1.6 trillion, like the federal deficit, and rising oil prices. With this kind of money being used, Bush better have a fantastic, and compelling reason to continue this war. Knowing Bush, he probably doesn't have one.

Shieva said...

obviously this is a lot of money being spent on something that Americans will not be benefiting from. Why should we, Americans, have to pay the most for this war? When the U.S. decided to go to war in the first place shouldn't they have thought about how it would affect the country? Instead they put another country's safety before ours.
I agree with Ziva though. We should support our troops so that they get back home safely. But in order to do that, shouldn't we also try to get out of Iraq as soon as possible?

Haeley Meyer said...

It seems pretty obvious that $1.6 TRILLION is a lot to spend on a war that most of us look back on thinking it was a dumb thing to start. But did we necessarily think that in the beginning? I have to say i agree with what Paul argued when he said that we can't leave immediately--doing that wouldn't make anything besides the number figure feel or look any better.

I feel that after i saw that number that i agree more and more with Cynthia Lee's campaign for our 3rd period class-- domestic issues before international. Imagine what that TRILLION dollars could have done for our nations poor, homeless, elderly or orphans? Overall, that's just sort of upsetting.

Jon Co said...

This is an outrage! This is the exactly the opposite direction that our government should be heading. As citizens of the United States of America, we are also obliged to pay taxes to the government. I do not want to be paying taxes that go towards a huge war deficit when I believe the US should be receding from Iraq. Although we are trying to reform the government in Iraq, it is costing too much. I believe the US can only do so much. Where do we draw the line? How many deteriorating governments can we fix?

Farrah Ng said...

I think Haeley raised a good point. Although in retrospect, most if not all of us think that the war was the dumbest idea in the world -- a scheme cooked up by the Bush administration to suck up the American tax payers' money, drain our supplies, demolish our financial surplus, and send our troops out to war. However, do you guys remember when Bush had a 90 something approval rating? A majority of the country was supporting him in his valiant and solid declaration of war, his stance, the way he handled the situation. I don't think he meant the war to come to this situation either. I, of course, don't support this situation at all, but it's just something to think about before disparaging Bush and talking about how stupid he was for starting the war in the first place.

Here's a graph i found of Bush's approval ratings since he has been in office.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

this is the graph we think about mostly, how it's the lowest ever:

http://users.pop.umn.edu/~ruggles/2004.htm

Ryan Landis said...

All I have to say is that will be my bankroll in a couple years :). But seriously, how much is that to America, not as much as almost every poster is giving it credit. It is big, but it is not all that ridiculous. Pretty ridiculous, but not all that ridiculous.