How much tax payer money has been spent on the war in Iraq as of April 2006 and of this amount,  how much has gone to Halliburton and its subsidiaries.
126087
Payments to ghost employees. Contractors overcharging by hundreds of millions of dollars on no-bid contracts. And billions in reconstruction money gone missing. The list of reasons for an Independent War Profiteering Commission just keeps on growing.\n\nThe Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) disputed $263 million in charges from Halliburton subsidiary Kellog, Brown and Root for its $2.41 billion no-bid contract. Normally, the Army withholds between 55 to 75 percent of the monies flagged by the auditors.\n\nSo what did the Army do in this case? It withheld 3.8 percent of the payments. Yes, you read that correctly, 3.8 percent – meaning it paid all but $10 million of the charges in question despite the alleged corruption. This just Halliburton, so many others are making huge profits of this war! Makes you wonder??   \nWorld > Terrorism & Security\nposted January 10, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.\n\nReport: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion\nNew study takes into account long-term costs of healthcare for wounded soldiers.\nBy Tom Regan | csmonitor.com\nA new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.\n\n    "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."\n\nThe higher $2 trillion amount takes a 'moderate' approach. Both figures are based on the projection that US troops will remain in Iraq until 2010, with steadily decreasing numbers each year. The economists also used government data from past wars, and included such costs as the rise in the price of oil, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war, the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured, and the increased costs of recruiting to replenish a military drained by repeated tours of duty in Iraq. These are items which are almost never included by the US government when determining the cost of the war.\n \n  \n   \n\n   \n  \n \n\nBefore the war started, Mitch Daniels, then the White House budget director, had said the war would be an "affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as "very, very high." What a joke, if the American public was told this at the begining what would they have done? It sounds like they knew and covered it up as always!!!
441796
I don't know... and did they ever find out for who was accountable for all that missing money in Iraq at the beggining of the war? (8 million or billion or something)? it was a big deal and then I never heard anymore about it?
485018
The plan was to get defense contractors billions of dollars in work and to sneak millions of barrels of oil out of the country.\n\nThat plan has worked so far.\n\nCheney's 400,000 shares of Haliburton stock have increased in value by 500% in the last three years.
456790
Iraq wants the US and everyone else to leave.  They feel nothing will be resolved with all the "occupiers" around.\n\nIn terms of money...well, Bush's contracting companies didn't do too much and they left and took the money with them.  Check it out:\nhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/11/AR2006111101076.html
463630
Thank you!!!!!!! What is the figure again?? One Billion US$/day to be in Iraq.........But that`s not even close to be as troubling as the number of casualties on all sides especially that the whole thing is based on a fool LYING to the world through his teeths!!
344857
You should have started buying Haliburton stocks when the Bush administration started their sales pitch on invading Iraq.  Those stocks have more than tripled in value since then.
570081
Actually, military spending is an extremely inefficient way of spending money (which I believe was your point).\n\nI was talking to an economist who argues that if the money the United States had put into the military since 1945 had been spent in the civilian sector instead, the GDP would have grown 32-fold over what it is now... a $350 trillion economy. There would be "cruises to Mars and Jupiter" under the "Travel" section of Answers.
344756
Because they don't want the American people to know exactly how much money the US is spending on the war and what they are spending it on.  I saw a "60 Minutes" story about how the US has "misplaced" $800 million in Iraq....
107571
Rumor has it that Halliburton has made a bundle. ;)
43305
I believe it was in excess of 500,000.  Bush is only up to 2,000+ Americans and 100,000+ Iraqis (mostly civilian)
525394
John you have answered your own question.  Do you really think these politicians make only $165,000 a year?  This figure does not include the perks, free medical care, free transportation including jet rides for their families and entourage, retirement plans equal in salary and perks until they die.  And whatever corporations tag on with speaking engagements, representations.  As Mark Twain wrote, "The US has the Best Government Money Can Buy."  Big Money/Big Corporations.  Look at the List of Corporations who received NON BID contracts for Iraq?  Haliburton (Cheney's previous employer)  Carlyle Corp. (Papa Bush is trustee along with the Saudis), Texco (Ms. C. Rice's alma mater).  10% of the American population control 60% of the wealth in the US.  What do you think?  It is pretty obvious who and what controls this country.
13940
It's difficult to get accurate information on that since it spends money on natural disasters in so many different ways, from actually providing food and shelter to tax relief. FEMA's Disaster Relief Account has spent $44.278 billion over the past 10 years, $11.846 billion of which was spent last year alone.
65816
As of Feb. 21, 2006 we have been in Iraq for 1069 days
401691
13, 308.3 billion current dollars.\n\n11,432.9 billion chained (2000 dollars)\n\nhttp://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
584324
50 percent to the military and money to pay off the National Debt,\n\nThe other 2 big chunks go to HHS and the Department of the Treasury. And before you jump on HHS, much of that is to go for your parents in nursing homes who signed all their assets over to you so you could get out of paying for their care!\n\nThe question is, where do the non-tax of corporations go? Big oil pays 2.1% while you pay $4,00 a gallon. Where can I get that deal.\n\nThe rich complain of their tax rate, 33%, but 33% of 0, which is what they claim, is still 0!\n\nSome to give rebates to corporations that pay no taxes at all\n\n\n"A lot of times in the rhetoric, people forget the facts. And the facts are that thousands of small businesses - Hispanically owned or otherwise - pay taxes at the highest marginal rate." -George W. Bush, speaking to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, March 19, 2001
171382
The Bush family has made all there money for years of of oil and dirty deeds. If you research it you will find there was a deal with Sadam about a pipe line to be built, And when he refused we went to war!! These oil companies are making record profits!!! No one is doing anything to stop them. And oil is part of the reason we are at war, to control more oil!!
147906
I think metcalf has it half right. This war was intended as payback for the powerful corporations (most notably Halliburton and the oil companies) who backed bush's political campaigns in 2000 and 2004. These companies are making a fortune off the deaths of young American and British soldiers, to say nothing of the staggering Iraqi civilian casualties. It is a disgrace!\n\nAs far as consolidating republican power on the homefront, it's a decidedly mixed bag, I think. The lockstep majority are of course falling in line behind their idiot king, georgie the incompetent, and many will go down with his ship of state (aka ship of fools). But I am seeing increasing signs of dissent in the ranks. Censure and even impeachment (sweet Jesus, let it be so!) could be in the offing if the Democrats can retake control of the House and/or Senate in the 2006 elections. \n\nThat said, the blood money from this illegal and immoral war has filled the GOP coffers to overflowing. So by virtue of that fact, yes, the consolidation of republican power has been achieved. Money is the name of the game in Washington and those bastards have plenty of it now. Still, I am not without hope of something vaguely resembling justice prevailing when all is said and done in this, the worst period in modern US history.