« Save Me Some Money | Main | His Ideas Are Good, But I Want More Bullet Points »
November 13, 2007
Hidden Costs
The Dems in Congress just released a new study tallying up the "hidden costs" of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the higher oil prices, the wounded veterans, the interest paid on the debt we've amassed, etc. When added up, these expenses almost double the cost of the wars, moving us from $804 billion to $1.5 trillion. Spread out across the population, that's about $20,200 for every family of four in the nation.
There's some dispute about the numbers, so lets cut them to 75% -- $15,000 for every family of four in the nation. There's a tendency, even among conservatives, to see large congressional appropriations as magical dollar amounts that come from god-knows-where. They come, of course, from us. So, a genuine question for war supporter: Do you think this war has been worth $15,000 to the median family in the nation?
November 13, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Do you think this war has been worth $15,000 to the median family in the nation?
How does "no" sound?
Posted by: Peter | Nov 13, 2007 10:52:05 AM
I have wondered for ages why Democrats haven't said: "This war has cost you $4000. Are you safer? Are you freer? Is Osama Bin Laden still at large?"
And, since the $4000 is borrowed, you're paying about 75 cents a day, just on the interest.
Posted by: dm | Nov 13, 2007 11:16:01 AM
Does that figure include the over 1 billion bucks a year that is shoveled into the treasury of the military dictator of Pakistan? The place where Bin Laden has been chilling out for about seven years now? The place that just released a slew of Taliban fighters from prison? The place that has freely traded nuclear secrets to all sorts of creeps? Just wondering.
Posted by: chowchowchow | Nov 13, 2007 11:32:18 AM
Do you think this war has been worth $15,000 to the median family in the nation?
I wonder how much WW II cost us? Ya' know, along with the "hidden costs" of rationing, the wounded, higher commodity prices, broken families, etc. If you had asked people when things weren't going well, they might have said the same thing. Ask them now and they will say yes.
The truth is, evaluating anything until it's complete is asinine. It's simply a political ploy and one that no one will pay attention to.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 13, 2007 11:39:12 AM
Jeez, El Pendejo, can't you come up with a good argument?
Everyone with 1/4 a brain knows that Truman investigated the costs associated with WWII while we were in the thick of it, and that FDR chose him as a running mate in part because of his courage and the integrity he showed in investigating his own party.
Instead, you want to wait 100 years or so to let history decide whether this war was worth it. I guess deep inside you know that the truth is Bush lied to everyone to get us into it and has ruined the entire thing.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 13, 2007 11:50:27 AM
Do you think this war has been worth $15,000 to the median family in the nation?
Well, maybe you never really liked your irritating brother/son/husband anyway. Or maybe you just disliked his ability to walk. Or see.
I wonder how much WW II cost us? Ya' know, along with the "hidden costs" of rationing, the wounded, higher commodity prices, broken families, etc. If you had asked people when things weren't going well, they might have said the same thing.
You could try finding some evidence for this. Say, an opinion poll from 1942, showing that a significant number of people thought that the cost of the war was too high. You won't find one.
Posted by: ajay | Nov 13, 2007 12:03:09 PM
That's exactly my credit card debt at the moment!
Posted by: Fred F. | Nov 13, 2007 12:03:31 PM
If Bush offered to pay me $15K or $20K for the Stupid Iraq War, I'be insulted that he offered such a paltry amount and tell him to shove it where the sun doesn't shine (except that strictly speaking, he's all asshole so the sun does shine on him).
Now, $100K sounds better per capita, so that proves that I'm a whore and we are just negotiating the price, I guess.
Since Pay/Go is the rule again in Congress, when will the Congress insure that Pay/Go also applies to DoD?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 13, 2007 12:08:28 PM
...I guess deep inside you know that the truth is Bush lied to everyone to get us into it and has ruined the entire thing.
Hey, wait a minute! I thought Bush was stupid? How could he snooker all those smart Democrats that voted for the war? He must be a genious to do so since they all had access to the same intelligence that Bush did.
I had no idea he was so clever.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 13, 2007 1:18:36 PM
Notice how EV hasn't answered the question, just tried to change the subject a couple times.
Posted by: Ezra | Nov 13, 2007 1:25:35 PM
I thought you could understand my answer. I guess not so I will answer it in a straightforward manner without confusing you.
No one, except those who are using the war for partisan advantage, can make the determination of whether the war is worth the cost until we see the final results and that hasn't happened.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 13, 2007 2:22:16 PM
"from us"
From you and your friends on the blogging left? Really?
You may not realize this, but the tax burden isn't allocated pro rata.
Posted by: Thomas | Nov 13, 2007 2:28:56 PM
...from us
What Thomas left out: There's a tendency, even among conservatives, to see large congressional appropriations as magical dollar amounts that come from god-knows-where. They come, of course, from us.
How does that sentence in any way divide the "us" into left and right? It merely states that people, even conservatives, tend to see large Congressional expenditures as free-floating sums of money when in fact said dollars come from the taxpayers (us).
Trolls with better reading comprehension skills, please.
Posted by: litbrit | Nov 13, 2007 2:39:29 PM
El via: How could he ? [Bush] must be a genious to ... snooker all those smart Democrats that voted for the war ... since they all had access to the same intelligence that Bush did.
SG: El via is quite correct here, except for one vowel and one consonant ... "the same UN-intelligence ... other than that, p(R)etty good point there El via
El via: I had no idea he was so clever.
SG: Actually, you had no idea.
Snerd
Posted by: Snerd Gronk | Nov 13, 2007 2:44:38 PM
Thomas: You may not realize this, but the tax burden isn't allocated pro rata.
SG: Does that mean the cost of the wa(R) is NOT pro bono, as well?
Snerd
Posted by: Snerd Gronk | Nov 13, 2007 2:47:21 PM
As to the question, I was never an Iraq War supporter and no its not worth $15K to accomplish, uh, nothing.
As to how they'll find the money--like everything else lately they'll just print more paper and we'll inflate our way out of the mess. Good if you have a fixed house loan, but bad if you have an ARM.
Posted by: Texican | Nov 13, 2007 2:52:24 PM
No one, except those who are using the war for partisan advantage, can make the determination of whether the war is worth the cost until we see the final results and that hasn't happened.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 13, 2007 2:22:16 PM
Well Fred there are plenty of results to see already, its just that none of these results are the ones you desperately need for your own, uh, "partisan advantage". If you want to keep making that WWII analogy, let's go to the mat, chump; by this point the Nazis were overthrown, reconstruction of Europe had begun and the Pacific war was shaping up in our favor too. And what do we have at this point in Iraq? Well, billions of dollars handed over to crony corporations by government fiat, thousands of abandoned hospital and school projects, a sectarian war we can't put a lid on, our weapons and money whisked away into the hands of dangerous militants, our military stretched to the brink, recruitments bottomed out, our nation's reputation shredded...and as you love to say, Fred, it isn't even over yet.
Posted by: chowchowchow | Nov 13, 2007 3:53:21 PM
This dollar figure made me wonder what the price of just giving everyone a pony would be.
Just did a bit of research on about.com. Apparently a pony costs about $1,000 upfront and 1416.20.
The lifespan of a horse is apparently 20-30 years, so lets go with 25. So $36,405 a pony if we include the cost in future years but don't account for inflation. So, for the record, we could have gotten one American family in three a pony for the price of the Iraq War. Since the population of Iraq is an order of magnitude less that the population of the U.S. we could have gotten them three ponies each. Two per household of them might have been arbitrarily killed or stolen by Saddam, but that'd still leave one a family.
That said, pony production probably isn't scalable to that level, so it'd have to be spread over a few years/decades.
Posted by: Greg Sanders | Nov 13, 2007 3:54:49 PM
If your assertion that we need to quit the war is so overwhelmingly obvious, each of the liberal candidates would be touting this as a campaign promise.
However, each of the three frontrunning Democratic presidential candidates were asked point blank if they could guarantee to have the troops home by the end of their first term as president. None could make that promise...not Hillary, not Obama and not Edwards.
What value do they see in keeping troops there that you don't?
This demonstrates how out of touch you are, even with your own political party.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 13, 2007 4:17:46 PM
imagine, if gore had been president...
that money could have been used for health care,ending poverty in our own country, alternative energy, education, the environment, infrastructure, scientific and medical research and technology, transportation, the arts....it would have been a different america.
Posted by: jacqueline | Nov 13, 2007 5:31:43 PM
Imagine, if someone could provide some evidence that Gore would not have invaded Iraq.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 13, 2007 8:25:52 PM
"Imagine, if someone could provide some evidence that Gore would not have invaded Iraq."
thanks, DB; in your cynicism, you admit the Bush administration's planned deception of the American people...a liberal couldn't have done it better
Posted by: jinbaltimore | Nov 13, 2007 8:52:23 PM
imagine, if gore had been president...
Lessee....
We've had three attacks since 9-11. One dirty bomb in NYC, The Seattle space needle has been toppled and we're just now beginning the reconstruction of the San Francisco bridge is starting. In these attacks, another 103,000 people died and now we are interested in controlling the borders. Both parties are on board. The DOW is at 8,500 and has been doing well gaining 200 points in just the lastweek.
Business would be in the toilet because of all of the capitulation to green companies. China has already pulled ahead and with all its additional funds is rapidly building up its military.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 13, 2007 11:18:26 PM
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
--John Lennon
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 14, 2007 12:01:49 AM
"imagine, if gore had been president..."
repubs would be winding down their investigation into some personal matter of his since the country would be doing just swell.
maybe an independent counsel on his eating habits?
Posted by: jinbaltimore | Nov 14, 2007 7:23:23 AM
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do...
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
John Lennon was a great songwriter and that's about it.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 14, 2007 12:12:12 PM
