We Can't Afford This War Anymore
I have been against the Iraq war from the very beginning. However, my arguments didn't rest on the lofty perches of ethics or morals; they rested on the far cruder cost benefit analysis of war. The bottom line is war costs far more than it is worth economically. And the longer this war progresses, the more expensive it gets.
According to the Congressional Budget office, this war has cost $752 billion dollars. Let that figure sink in -- $752 billion dollars. And it's getting more expensive. According to the same report, the yearly increase in costs are increasing at a high rate. In 2003 total appropriations for the war were $76 billion. In 2007 they were $165 billion. And the increase in cost is largely from the ongoing operations. Operation and Maintenance costs were $46 billion in 2003 and $92 billion in 2007 -- a doubling of costs within 5 years. In addition, procurement expenses over the same period of time increased from $10 billion to $51 billion. So, the longer this war progresses, the more expensive in gets.
Let's place this cost in a larger perspective. Here is a chart of total Federal expenditures and receipts since 2001:
Notice the federal government has never even come close to balancing a budget for the entire duration of the "MBA President."
Also notice the mammoth amount of debt the Federal Government has issued over the entire time in office of the "MBA President."
Here is a list of total debt outstanding at the end of the government's fiscal year:
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
To place that in perspective, total debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 57% to 64% under Bush's tenure.
And in the current fiscal year, we're on target to have a record deficit (h/t Calculated Risk).
The Treasury Department says the federal deficit through the first half of this budget year is at an all-time high, underscoring the pressure the budget is coming under as the economy slumps.
The US economy is facing a financial crisis right now -- the worst crisis since the great depression. Yet we continue to spend money for Bush's Iraq folly at a record pace. Whoever gets elected next year is going to have an extremely unpleasant first conversation with the Treasury Secretary. The conversation will start with, "Mr. President, we're screwed financially."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bondad wrote: "Whoever gets elected next year is going to have an extremely unpleasant first conversation with the Treasury Secretary. The conversation will start with, 'Mr. President, we're screwed financially.'"
It's not going to be the Treasury Secretary that has to say this. The coming dollar crisis will tell all, and it's on track to hit before the election.
So, we're involved in a war that is going to destroy our economy and probably plunge the nation into an economic depression. Isn't that the Neocon plan? Then they can be up front about destroying the Republic and replacing it with an Oligarchy.
Well, no. What you aren't being told is that the deficits are quite a bit more than the cost of the war. Mr. Stuart observes:
"To place that in perspective, total debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 57% to 64% under Bush's tenure."
To place THAT in perspective, the total cost of the war through FY2007 corresponds to 7.2% of the debt he cites for 2007.
Without the cost of the war, his figures look (roughly) like this:
9/30/2007 $8,899,653,372,262.48
9/30/2006 $8,398,973,899,215.23
9/30/2005 $7,824,709,661,723.50
9/30/2004 $7,271,052,696,330.32
9/30/2003 $6,675,231,062,743.62
9/30/2002 $6,120,235,965,597.16
9/30/2001 $5,699,463,412,200.06
9/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
with 2007 representing 63% of GDP. Not what I'd call massive debt reduction.
Ther is only one bottom line in the budget that, if eliminated would wipe out these debts. In fact we'd have had surplusses, war or not, all the way back to 1992. That's Social Security.
http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/sheets/25_13.xls
Social Security is not the problem that you think it is. First, it's a parallel tax structure, therefore removing it from the gov't will NOT result in a surplus, since we would ALSO lose the taxes that it brings in. Second, were it not for raygun and daddy bush, we'd be FINE in social security, since they've been using the income from SS to prop up the gov't deficits while looking like they weren't as bad as they really were.
In fact, the ONLY two parts of the gov't that I can say are doing well and would be just FINE if Clowngress and the POTUS wouldn't involve themselves are Social Security and Medicare!!
Furthermore, by ONLY counting the direct war costs, you are attempting to make it look like we would still be just as screwed without the war. You are not, however, counting the VAST amounts of waste in the DoD's REGULAR budget, or the simple fact that it is our government's largest single discretionary budget item.....
Basically the only thing that we can cut which will fix our budget problem, and simultaneously fix our standing in the world is to GUT the military!
Shhh, Hale.
You are sounding like an old fashioned Eisenhower/Goldwater conservative who believes that we should be fiscally responsible and not get involved in overseas adventurism (or in this case: misadventure).
What? A return to traditional conservatism? We can't have that, now can we? Before long you will sound like a Ron Paul supporter and want to put the root word "conserve" back into conservatism.
I'll bet that you even believe that people who support this war should be serving in it.
It's amazing what seven years of Republican rule have done to take us to the brink of collapse. Instead of continuing the prudent policies of the Clinton era they have sacked the treasury, burying us under debt that we may not be able to refinance. Meanwhile the unfunded liabilities of the feds mount to staggering levels, $40-50 trillion for Medicare and Social Security over the next 40 years. Add to that the guaranteed $10 trillion of federal debt Bush will leave behind and that's some real money.
It's not that we can't carry debt at 2% of GDP; it's the fact that the underpinnings of our economy are gone. As a debtor nation who's going to buy our debt? We're a consumption driven economy, and the consumer is tapped out. Home equity is the lowest since WWII. Our industrial base is gone. Our civic infrastructure is crumbling.
It's amazing that the American public still buys the absurd notion of a "War on Terror." We're willing to destroy ourselves pursuing its as yet unarticulated goals. We have hit the tipping point of all civilizations that collapse under the weight of arrogance and excess. How pathetic that the catalyst to our self-destruction was a few religious fanatics armed with $20 worth of box cutters.
Bush did everything he could to try to fix Social Security permanently. It put him in a very vulnerable position. And rather than join him, the Dems capitalized on it, taking the opportunity to ramp up their attacks on him.
What really galls me most is that Dems obstructed a very good and responsible and completely VOLUNTARY plan that would have permanently solved SS, without offering a single alternative plan of their own.
That's the pinnacle of gotcha politics, if there ever was one.
Now when you say that "bush did everything he could do to try to fix Social Security permanently." you really mean *FIX* it permanently, like they used to do on the Sopranos, right? What he was trying to do would have DESTROYED SS! The only reason that it's damaged right now AT ALL, in because of the policies of raygun, daddy, and the shrub, where they FORCED the SS trust fund to purchase gov't bonds for the surplus that it was bringing in to pay for the boomers!
mormondude, bush was never out to fix it, he was out to privatize it.
would you just love to have social security handled by the bear stearns types?
NO THANK YOU.
sick of republicans looting the treasury and destroying the country.
It all goes back to the race between tax receipts and spending.
The fundamental problem is that spending grows every year, regardless of the state of the economy. Economy booming? Spend more. Economy in the toilet? Spend more. There's no mechanism to curb spending when tax receipts drop.
If you take away the Clinton recession from 2000-2002, growth in tax receipts has kept pace with spending growth. So, the fundamental fiscal problem that every President faces is how to avoid recessions.
If we can avoid recessions, then we can mitigate the inexorable spending growth. If we can't, then we will never be able to keep up.
So now all we need it to look at all the candidates fiscal plans and decide which one is most likely to avert a future recession.
Clinton/Obama - Raise taxes. Implement new spending. Maintain or increase budget deficits. Keep troops in Iraq, or spend spend just as much money on something else.
McCain - Keep taxes low. Curb earmarks. Maintain budget deficits. Keep troops in Iraq.
Now Bonddad, which of those plans is more likely to avert recession and why?
There you go again Dude. Now maybe a few of those "clingy small town folk "will buy this, but hopefully not the "elitists" among us. Or just about anyone willing to think for themselves.
You make us beleive that averting a recession is the only acceptable plan. The only people who pushed that notion were you, Bush and Greenspan. Home run, huh?
How about a fiscal policy which promotes a long term healthy economy and middle class workforce? We have to take a recession to get back on the glidepath. I'd like to see that recession mitigated by spending on building infrastructure here at home not in Iraq.
A recession now is far better than a permanent plan to steal from the poor to give to the rich.
And oh did I mention that we should bring back the draft. That will end the war real fast.
If spending continues to rocket into the stratosphere every year, then taxes also have to rocket into the stratosphere every year to match them.
So you have two options. Either raise the tax RATE every year. Or grow the economy to raise the tax BASE every year.
Obviously raising taxes every year is not sustainable, and I haven't heard a single liberal suggest that we balance the budget by having a floating tax rate that can rise every year to match spending. So that doesn't leave many other options, does it?
Um, Mormondude, have you looked at McCain's plans? He plans to lower taxes! He claims he will finance it by cutting medicare, good luck getting seniors to vote for that. So expect at least half a trill of deficit a year from him. Continuing the recent trend of Republicans ballooning the deficit and the debt. Now Mormondude, who is more likely to destroy our economy and our nation and why?
Clinton and Obama have also proposed ATM reform and middle class tax cuts. Bringing them up needlessly complicates the analysis, since they are all in agreement. Kind of like all three support spending money on the global warming boondoggle. No it won't help our economy avert recession, but they all agree on it so it's pointless to argue about.
The difference is that Clinton and Obama both support raising taxes and then spending every dime of the new revenue. In fact, Clinton has repeatedly taken Obama to task over promising far more spending than he can pay for, so we could have even larger budget deficits killing our currency.
Medicare also needs reform. It's not something that people want to talk about, but everyone agrees that something will have to be done within the next 5-10 years, and that it will be painful.
Mormondude, I will grant that PART of the responsibility for the 2000-200*1* recession lies with Clinton. The rest lies with bushco(tm). Furthermore, since Clinton left office with a SURPLUS, that means that ANY loss in revenues during and after he left office is directly related to the fact that bush not only REMOVED the surplus by sending us all a $300 check, but then CUT TAXES!!!
Now then, I'll agree that there need to be SOME limits on spending by the government. The difference is that *I* would cut the military industrial complex, and then we'd be able to afford ALL the social programs that we have, PLUS allow for universal health care, AND paying down the $10 TRILLION debt, which has increased by $4TRILLION in the last 7 years!!!
The surplus was completely based on extrapolating out a GROWING economy. If they knew in 1999 that there was going to be a recession and the stock market was going to tank, there wouldn't be any surplus to complain about, because they would have factored all of that in and the calculated 'surplus' would have gone POOF!
Dude, if you're going to mention the "Clinton Recession" (sic.) then give deference to the surplus he left at the end of his term. He and Rubin left a plan in place to pay down a substantial portion of the national debt. Then the Republicrooks showed up and off-loaded the surplus into the pockets of their base, the "haves and have-mores."
Their recklessness, arrogance and outright stupidity led to the disastrous Iraq invasion--instead of staying on Osama, who's still out there dragging his dialysis machine from cave to cave. Iraq is a rathole. It is an occupation that cannot be defined as won or lost. Whenever we leave conditions will be the same, a catastrophically unstable country in the midst of our drug of choice, oil.
Bush and his supply-side, neocon cronies have created an economic checkmate. Regarding the economy nothing we do will lead to anything but pain. For starters, let's get out of Iraq NOW. Repeal the Bush tax giveaways. Then use that money (albeit much of it still borrowed from the Chinese and my kids) to do another New Deal, complete with all sorts of makework projects that repair our infrastructure and get Americans back to work. Invest some in alternative energy sources, restoration of the environment, and other liberal do-gooder projects that KEEP THE MONEY HERE.
Two quibbles.
First, we never could afford this war. From day 1.
Second, let's note that the most important part of our national treasure that we are squandering there is our precious servicemen and servicewomen.
But bushco(tm) doesn't seem to CARE that we are wasting our servicemember's lives, so maybe the people that support him will consider the actual DOLLAR cost of the war as important! And you are correct, we could NEVER afford it, though we might have done better if we'd been smart enough to actually FUND the damn thing with TAXES!!!
The only justice we will get bis from the historians,fat lot of good.The massive economic adjustment will hurt the working man not the perpetrators.The Europeans are scared to death by Bush and his Neocons but nobody can say anything.Who can save us?Hillary has Neocon ties and voted accordingly as she was told.For the hope of banishing these profiteers from America,I'm voting for Obama
The Republicons don't want the liberal Democrats spending government money on massive social programs... so they spent it on a war that primarily benefits those who supply arms to the military. After they leave office, and a $10 trillion National Debt, they will have their cake (Democrats won't have the money to spend on social programs) and eat it, too (energy and defense company CEOs and government cronies will already have the money in THEIR pockets).
That was the Bush Republican plan from the get-go, to starve the government of money so none could be spent on "frivolous and wasteful social programs." Look at their voting and veto record. Any proposal smacking of benefits to the middle or lower classes are smacked down. They care nothing about "promoting the general welfare." Their interest is in promoting and promulgating Bush's "base."
The longer we stay in Iraq and the more money spent the less the government has to spend on domestic problems. But you can bet that they'll not flinch in spending for "law and order."
To end the war is simplicity itself; don't spend another dime on it. You'd think the Dems would do this since they hold the majority but since they won't , and won't impeach the Bush government, it can only mean that the two parties are in collusion.
"To end the war is simplicity itself; don't spend another dime on it. You'd think the Dems would do this"
They don't want to "play chicken" with the troops, and I can't say I blame them. You assume bush would pull the troops out if the dems cut off funding. I don't think he would.
No, the only way to end it would have been to impeach and/or revoke the AUMF. I don't think the parties are "in collusion" per se, they just happen to have the same paymasters.
They call it "starving the beast". They've been doing it for years.
When could we afford this insanity?
Instead of borrowing the money to pay for the war, we should all be paying for it directly. This would undoubtedly bring a quick close to this debacle, due to the fact that every household in America would be paying around $200 per month to finance it. I don't know about others, but I can't afford to pay that much money to finance an illegal occupation of an innocent country.
Common sense tells us that the cost will only increase, and exponentially, at that. One needs only to look at the example of the troop transport vehicles, with the v-shaped armored exteriors. These expensive vehicles, initially deemed unnecessary, have proven to be integral in providing added protection for our troops, because of the unexpected enemy tactic of the use of IEDs. Therefore, we are now forced to produce untold numbers of them, costing the taxpayers a mint. The enemy is constantly evolving, utilizing new tactics which we are forced to counter with new equipment that will cost us a fortune to produce.
Wolfowitz's initial prediction that the war would cost the American taxpayers 50 billion dollars "tops," is so representative of the arrogance, incompetence and short-sightedness of the neocons who have hijacked this country. We should all be prepared to shell out much more than even the most pessimistic of the predictions would have us believe.
You know, Bonddad, it's a good thing that whoever the treasury secretary is WON'T be Paulsen. Cause then the first conversation would be more like "Mr. Secretary, we're screwed!"
c'mon! everyone and their mother KNOWS that deficits don't matter!!! lol!
Now, of course, by "everyone", you mean those employed by bushco(tm), right???
Of course, Bush's war, besides shedding a lot of blood, will also shed a lot of money. Our children will be paying off this fool's war for -- HOLD ON! Wait a minute! Now, just who are the fools here? The Bush gang or the American voters? We are now looking at McCain (who wants more war), Hillary, who is rather vague about the whole matter, and Obama (ditto). Any one of these in the White House will simply carry on Bush's War until either "victory" (what nonsense) or "until a stable, democratic Iraq is in place" (don't hold your breath). The majority of Americans will choose one of these three candidates. They have been lead by a corporate media to even now expect a "war with Iran"! They have also been lead to ignore and ridicule Ron Paul -- the only candidate who has opposed the war from the beginning (unlike McCain & Hillary), and he wants our troops home NOW (unlike our "top tier" candidates). Well, the American sheep will get just what they deserve -- herded, sheared and served up for dinner. Who are the fools here?
Actually, Obama has said point blank that he will start bringing the troops home as soon as he's in office. And while Hillary's proposal isn't quite as good, they are BOTH WAYYYYYYYY better than John McBush, who's said that he will keep the troops there until they aren't dying anymore, and then it will be okay for us to leave the troops there until doomsday!
I admire your candor,but the Neocons have bled us dry and will not stop sucking our blood just because we complain.Trashing the dollar will help our exports for an while but we will still be broke.Economic collapse will unleash ugly forces which are hard to control,I want nto see the Neocons punished and jailed for treason but lynching may be a bit much.
We also cant afford the post-war costs, including the care of war disabled servicepersons, the destruction of our National Guard so won't be as needed in case of a major climent event (like Hurricane Katrina). This war is also being financed by China, preventing any resonable changes in trade polices with them further hurting the USA and much of the rest of the world. If every person had to see in their income tax the proportion being used to support this war, it might really change minds.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
