Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: $4 Trillion to $6 Trillion War Cost

Posted 5 years ago on April 5, 2013, 5:59 p.m. EST by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

  • New separate studies by Harvard and the federal government say that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end up costing U.S. taxpayers between $4 Trillion and $6 Trillion.

  • So how come George W. Bush fired Army Generals who said that the costs would exceed $60 billion???

  • So how come George W. Bush handed out Tax Cuts for the first time ever in a time of war?

  • How come the Tea Party Idiots (TPI) refuse to now pay for the costs that enriched Republican war mongers?

  • How come the Tea Party wants the Republican party to hold the line and cut government further, including cutting our Medicare and selling U.S. assets in order for those Tea Party Idiots can avoid paying bills that are now due?

  • I once was astonished when camping at a spot in the High Sierras that I had camped in since I was a child. But now the camp ground had changed. It was filled with RV's.

  • RVs owned by a number of Tea Party Idiots.

  • I talked to these RV traveling Tea Party Idiots, and they were typical "Taxed Enough" morons who didn't want to pay another dime of taxes. Yet they were big supporters of our military and the war on terror.

  • Now the Tea Party in Washington DC has jacked up the Republican panty waists, and they have blocked a raise in the debt cap, even though we are not blocking future spending, the Tea Party Idiots are blocking paying of bills for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and much more.

  • And now we have this stupid "Sequester" that scattershot hits everyone.

  • Meanwhile, the Rich have continued to do well, including the 1% that benefited mightily from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • We need a War Tax.

  • Need Jobs?

  • Every Economist with integrity says government needs to spend more now. Not cut, or sequester cut.

  • We need a War Tax now. Now!

  • And the irony of that camp ground meeting with Tea Party Idiots? My father and grandfather helped build those camp grounds during the Great Depression. Because the federal government, the spender of last resort, created the Civilian Conservation Corps, the WPA, and many other programs that boosted the US economy, stimulated job creation, and reversed an economic malaise.

  • Sorry for the rant, but I can no longer listen to these Tea Party Idiots, or the Panty Waist Republican toadies.

  • Have a nice day.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

Why do you think the Republican party is often called the "Stupid People's Party"?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5175) 5 years ago

Them boys thunk with their southern hemispheres.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Choosing bombs over medical care.

It may be time we stop pandering and pleading to DC to save us and start putting our own heads together to figure it out.

Oh wait, we already started that.

And they shut it all down.


[-] -1 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 5 years ago

Just think how much less it would have been if Obama stopped both wars when he first came into office.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

He really should return that peace prize.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5175) 5 years ago

Really? Directly from your source, he was given that peace prize for "Obama is now the world's leading spokesman." He spoke so he got. He had also "captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." He had given hope so he got. Speech and hope were what the peace prize was for and don't we still have those?

We should not forget either: "Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting." He had initiative so he got the peace prize.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

Has the U.S. ratified the Kyoto protocols? Words of hope without results are worthless.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5175) 5 years ago

No, Kyoto protocol was a joke even for Kyoto. Aren't we smart not to have been suckered by pointing our finger at the major developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil which were to be excluded? Our divided form of government has the major advantage of being able to point the fingers of each branch of government at each other without having to claim responsibility. So what if the Kyoto protocol was actually a bastard of a U.S. initiative! Hope is what can still serve as the 'opiate for the masses'.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

Opiates eventually leave the body famished for real food. The people to whom those word were directed haven't tasted a single morsel. Obama's hot air may lift some people's spirits, but in the end, it is a change none of us will believe in.


[-] 1 points by grapes (5175) 5 years ago

It is time to double the dosage for our fallen comrades. Morphine on the 'battlefield' is a drug of both mercy and grace.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

Morphine can't heal the wounds. To continue it's injection and postpone surgery, while drawing the patients own blood to be transfused to the wealthy is cruel and inhumane.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5175) 5 years ago

The patients have not consented to 'radical' surgery so we must stick to palliative care in a hospice.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

A fair wage isn't radical surgery. Obama talked about raising the minimum wage before he was elected in 2008. Still no progress on that minor operation.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5175) 5 years ago

That is no minor operation if it goes against the interests of his campaign donors -- after all he is a man of his words, isn't he?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

It's minor surgery, but he can't find a single doctor to perform it because they get paid more while the patient is fully medicated.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5175) 5 years ago

You understand the political dynamics well. A man of his words must not blatantly defy his political contributors but there is leeway to defer the action till the opportune moments such as shortly before a new election (next one being in 2014). There is also the 'balanced' approach in which the finance heavyweights do tilt the balance more than the myriad Lilliputian donors/activists.

[-] 1 points by Nader (74) 5 years ago

Did they ever explain exactly why he was given that award?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

Direct from the source:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

[-] 0 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 5 years ago

says here they were drunk


That's a joke but there's a real campaign/petition to revoke the award from Obama. Even Michael Moore once said he should give it back


[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 5 years ago
  • Probably a little less than $4 Trillion to $6 Trillion.

  • But you seem to have little knowledge about the budget process.

  • For example, stopping the wars immediately when President Obama took office, there would still be extremely high future costs.

  • Those future costs include:

  • (a) restocking the regular army, navy, marine units;

  • (b) restocking the reserve military units;

  • (c) paying the costs of providing ongoing rehabilitation and medical care and prosthesis maintenance to the injured military veterans;

  • (d) paying for other ongoing veteran benefits;

  • (e) paying the medical, legal, and social costs related to PTSD for injured veterans -- by the way, we had over 1.5 million veterans, so there's a large number of affected veterans.

  • (f) paying the diplomatic costs related to the loss of confidence of allies

  • (g) paying the extraordinary future diplomatic and military costs related to weakening Iraq -- Iran's mortal enemy -- and thereby emboldening Iran to push the US's buttons by escalating their nuclear programs . . .

  • . . . . .

  • (There's much more, but you get the idea Mr. Storm crow)