Tuesday

Fun for Everyone

Okay, not really. But attentions must be gathered, and Americans need to take note of today's news from the WaPo, which I am sure will garner only the smallest modicum of regard from other MSM sources.

'Hidden Costs' Double Price Of Two Wars, Democrats Say

The economic costs to the United States of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far total approximately $1.5 trillion, according to a new study by congressional Democrats that estimates the conflicts' "hidden costs"-- including higher oil prices, the expense of treating wounded veterans and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars.


That's right, $1,500,000,000,000. According to the post, this is about $20,000 per American family of four.

That amount is nearly double the $804 billion the White House has spent or requested to wage these wars through 2008, according to the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee. Its report, titled "The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War," estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000.


Of course the Republicans have something to say about this (You know because this is a "Democrat" report and all):

Brian Hart, a spokesman for Sam Brownback (Kan.), the committee's senior Republican senator, said, "The Democrats didn't bother to run this report by any of their Republican JEC colleagues or staff."

"We'll see what they come up with, but it sure seems that the Senate leadership is trying to protect their continual proclamations of defeat instead of working for bipartisan progress," Hart added.


Is he serious? This "proclaiming defeat" and "(not) working for bipartisan progress" schtick is getting rather fucking old already. Six years of a "rubber-stamp" Congress and here you have these assholes running around saying that the Dems aren't playing fair because they commissioned a report on their own rather than bringing up the idea in committee (where I'm sure it would have remained indefinitely).

Hold all incoming calls and get the goddamn whaaaaambulance down to Brownback's office, STAT. His feelings might be fractured.

The ridiculousness gets even more ridiculous:

Robert D. Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs (International) and a member of the National Security Council staff under Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter said he agrees that the war is far costlier than the publicly stated price tag but said some of the report's measures are problematic. He said he thinks it would be hard to show that the Iraq war has caused oil prices to skyrocket...


Well then the $1.5 trillion price tag is worth every penny because this guy says it would be "hard to show that the Iraq war has caused oil prices to skyrocket".

Next paragraph:

Oil prices have more than tripled since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the report notes, to a peak of more than $90 per barrel.


D-oh! In all fairness, Hormats does seem like a pretty reasonable guy, but he's missing a concept that reasonable people use quite readily called inference. We invade Iraq, oil prices triple. There might not be a 1:1 corollary, but all signs point to some sort of connection. Remember when Wolfowitz said Iraq oil production would pay for the war in six months...Good times.

It's been said by several others before and it's worth repeating now: If you ran a company like these people have run the government for the past six and a half years, you'd be in prison! No ifs, ands, or buts. (Well maybe some butts - sorry my infantile mind couldn't resist.)

Although war costs have risen each year and the fiscal 2008 funding request is the highest so far, the direct and indirect costs of Iraq and Afghanistan are much lower than the costs of World War II and are just passing those of the Vietnam War. World War II is estimated to have cost $4.9 trillion in today's dollars. According to Congressional Research Service reports, the Vietnam War cost $600 billion in today's dollars and the 1991 Persian Gulf War cost $80 billion.


WTF is the point of this paragraph? Please tell me this isn't some sort of half-assed comparison between terrorists and Nazis. (Horowitz alert!) I guess the financial comparison can be made, but it's a wee bit out of context considering that in WWII we were fighting two (three if you want to count Italy) military superpowers. Last time I checked, al Qeada didn't have a carrier fleet or U-boats.

Oh geez, I should have read the entire article first.

The nation's economy is so large that it "disguises the costs and doesn't impose any hardship on the American people," allowing the government to sidestep normal budgeting processes, Hormats said. He said the country has borrowed all the money it has needed for the wars because taxes have been lowered and the wars have been funded largely by supplemental appropriations, with few budgetary sacrifices.


That guy IS a fucking r-tard. I don't think these people understand the concept of borrowing. When you "borrow" money, you have to pay it back. It's not like stealing your playmates shovel in the sandbox. You borrow a couple billion dollars from a foreign power, they're gonna want it back...With interest. And what WaPo piece would be complete without someone from the Brookings Institute's two cents:

"A lot of (the war cost) is debatable, but there are costs that will in the near future be attributable to Iraq that haven't been accounted for yet."


Yeah. Like more dead people, but that really doesn't matter when we're talking 'bout the dollars now does it?

No comments: