We're spending $10 Billion a day in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Isn't this feeding the U.S. economy??
480269
No it is not, the money is used to allegedly support the troops and to supposedly rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Actually, it's $10 billion a month (not per day) being spent.\nImagine for a moment if that money was used for education of OUR citizens, or for health insurance, or to help the homeless. The war is a scam! The oil in Iraq was supposed to pay for the war, but you know how that goes when you have an oil man in the White House.
992981
Personally, I would say no as our foreign policy has historically been an extension of US corporate interests since the Spanish-American War and in earlier times the cover for the wealthy to steal land. The neocon corporatists had their eyes set on Iraq years before 911. 911 provided the rationale to invade Afghanistan for the payback. The next move (invasion and occupation of Iraq) can only be explained as a continuation of our historical foreign policy because the rationales this government paraded before us did not make one bit of sense to me. \nIt's about the oil or actually the ability to curtail production enough for record profits for oil companies and prices at the pump that the sheep do not like.
302278
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!!!
1007078
Our government is spending BILLIONS (yes Billions not millions) per MONTH in Iraq - whose money is this?  Well guess what people, it's money that supposed to be used for our benefits: education, retirement, health care etc.  And what are we doing in Iraq?  Securing the "FREEDOM" of Iraqi people, according to our president.  Hhhhmm, well many if not most Americans support this whole Iraqi freedom thing but many if not most Americans complain about illegal immigrants.  Why are we spending so much tax-payer money on "humanitarian causes" (believable?) in Iraq if people are going to complain about giving humanitarian assistance to the poor and unfortunate who work in this country?   Something is not right here...\n\n\nThe immigration problem has indeed gotten out of control but its our government's fault.  Let's accept the fact that our government does not have priorities in order and let's not complain about our tax-payer money going to some minimal assistance of illegals while illegal workers and their wages are the ones that keep the cost of lettuce and (everyday essentials) low.  Illegal workers do indeed contribute to the economy, why do people keep on thinking that they only benefit and don't contribute?  Who are the farm workers who get the minimal of wages for such hard work? Please, let's be realistic.  The children of illegal immigrants do have a right to education and denying it would only create a life of difficulties for society, not just for one group.  Let's not forget, our government touts itself as a big humanitarian, so denying basic educational rights to an underprivileged group goes against these basic principals. \n\nBut also, let's keep the numbers of immigrants in proportion.  Mexico (in this case) is amongst the wealthiest countries in Latin America - its people are not starving. People have been storming out of Mexico by false expectations and illusions of better life across the border.  \n\nDiplomacy, fair trade cooperations and enforcement of laws are the only way to work the problems of illegal immigration between the US and Mexico.
940014
Excellent statement, and I do believe most caring Americans do not mind paying taxes, it is as you said how they are spent is the issue.\nThe FY 2006  Defense portion is as below:\nTotal Funding                   $441.6 Billion.\nOperations and maintenance $124.3 Bil.\nMilitary Personnel                $108.8 Bil.\nProcurement                     $79.1 Bil.\nResearch, Development, Testing & Evaluation $69.5 Bil.\nMilitary Construction           $12.2 Bil.\nDepartment of Energy Defense Activities $17.0 Bil.\n\nWhat bothers me is the almost 70 billion dollars for research,testing and development, That would pretty well take care of hunger and medical needs in this country. \n\nHaving worked for the Government a number of years I don't want to get started on the amount of waste that goes on, as no one would want to pay their taxes.
31207
that's not the way it works...The Us doesn't "have" any money...we have a debt in the trillions of dollars (and counting) The difference is made up by selling bonds and from borrowing from trade partners (goods exchange or cash loans)  -mainly China, nowadays.  They do not need the actual money (no gold standard- "money has no inherant value) to run things, they just need a number to guide how much they can spend....it is the worst way to handle finances of any scale, and the first time we have funded wars from almost exclusive overseas borrowing.. We are screwed.
1186505
It's not true that we spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military, and we spend more on failed FDR socialism than all the rest of the federal budget combined (including defense). And the extent to which we do spend so much on the military is because of our allies. They know that we’ll be there in time of need, & they could never match our might, so they become more powerful in the world by reducing defense (which means we have to increase) & focusing on diplomacy& trade while making us look the bad cop. It’s a good policy for them & we’re strong enough to make it work for us too. So Thomas, please do be respectful even if you hate the person you speak of. \n\nAs to candidates, dems keep handing us elections by putting up liberal candidates that swing voters will never support. Biden looks okay for now, but his ideas are cowardly insane & won’t stand the spotlight of a campaign. Richardson is a better candidate because he has the Washington experience, he’s a moderate, he has executive exp as Gov, & he’s an outsider that can talk about all sides screwing it up by being at each other’s throat instead of being there for all Americans. \n\nWe republicans are in much more of a quandary. All the candidates we have now are more liberal then Bush & he’s too liberal for most of us, especially when we’re running right to reclaim the base. Rudy, McCain, Romney… Jeb can’t get it out of “Bush fatigue” Frist is too close to the Pres & too much an insider. If it is a northern liberal republican though I hope they’ll consider JC Watts for balance – it wouldn’t win us the black vote now, but inroads for the future. If we don't screw it up, it'll be fun again.
1047304
That's what they said with Iraq "stay the course"\n\nIt just gets worse and we get more in debt.\n\nAnd it is not only the $, all the talent that could have gone to building in America goes to Iraq to fight
206036
No.  As is always the case in war time most of the current deficit is going to defense spending.  Even before the 1930's when the government used to try to keep the budget balanced and the U.S. out of debt, there was always a budget deficit in times of war.  the amount of money spent on foreign assistance is a very small portion of the U.S. Budget.
774158
It has cost us billions, but I have been told by our administration that it is worth every penny because we have a democratic Iraq. But I sure miss the days when our priorities were social security for our aging grandparents, affordable health insurance, education for our children, creating good paying jobs, cheap gas, and the support of down and out Americans. Now, I can only imagine what it would be like if the USA had no deficit and our money had stayed home to invigorate and protect our quality of life.  (sigh!)
1152192
The United States is running a huge balance of payments deficit by spending more overseas than it exports, which I take it includes its expenditure in Iraq. Also, all Governments borrow and presumably Bush is mortgaging the United States' future.\n\nAs an Englishman I am all too conscious that the United Kingdom's power in the world was ruined by its debt funded expenditure on the First and Second World Wars. The Cambridge historian Correlli Barnett wrote a series of books (e.g. "Audit of War") to point out that in the end there is no point in exercising miltary power at the expense of capital investment.
230182
true...these wars that could have been avoided...are costing the US more than just money.  Its costing us people, supplies and money
553524
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lately been touting three sets of statistics to justify their claims of great progress in Iraq. First, they say, we've trained 100,000 Iraqi security forces. Second, 31 other countries are contributing troops as part of the vast international coalition. Third, Iraqi reconstruction is moving along on schedule, thanks to the $18.4 billion in U.S. economic aid.\n\nYet the U.S. State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report, dated Oct. 6, reveals that all three of those claims are either false or so misleading that they might as well be.\n\nFirst, it's true there are 100,000 Iraqi security forces, about three-quarters of whom are police, army troops or National Guardsmen. But that falls far short of the 272,000 forces that the report calculates are required. (For a breakdown of how many trained security forces exist and how many are needed, by category, click here.) \nSecond, about those 31 coalition members: All told, according to the report, they're contributing about 24,000 troops. The British alone are supplying about 8,000. So the remaining 30 countries have a total of 16,000 troops in Iraq—an average of just over 500 troops per country. The United States has about 130,000 troops over there—more than five times as many as all the other 31 countries combined. (For a full list of the countries involved—which include such powerhouses as Albania, Azerbaijan, and Tonga—click here.) This is not a coalition in the recognized sense of that word.\n\nCompare those figures with these: During the 1991 Gulf War (according to U.S. Central Command's official history of that conflict), 37 other nations took part, sending a total of 270,000 armed forces, flying 30,000 air sorties, and suffering one-third of combat fatalities. Among the nations sending at least one army division were Egypt and Syria. Now that's a coalition.*\n\nMore damning are the report's figures on Iraqi reconstruction. Yes, the U.S. Congress has appropriated $18.4 billion for this effort; but, according to the report, the authorities on the ground in Iraq have spent just $1.3 billion—about 7 percent of the money set aside.\n\nThe specifics of this disparity are still more depressing. For security and law enforcement, $3.2 billion was appropriated, but only $646 million has been spent. For electricity, $5.4 billion was appropriated, $330 million spent. For water resources and sanitation, $4.2 billion was appropriated, a pathetic $23 million spent. For oil infrastructure, $1.7 billion was appropriated, just $47 million spent. For justice, public safety and civil society, $1 billion was appropriated, $55 million spent. For health care, $786 million was appropriated, but $4 million spent. For transportation and communication, $500 million was appropriated, $12 million spent. And the list goes on.\n\nAlthough the State Department issued this report, you will not find it—or its weekly updates—on the State Department's Web site. Nor will you find it on the site of the Agency for International Development (though AID does have a similar report, with far vaguer and rosier figures). Instead, you'll find it on the Web site of the U.S. Commerce Department's Iraq Investment and Reconstruction Task Force—in short, on a site for businesses that need to know what's really happening over there. \n\nWhat's really happening—in numbers as clear as day—is that the training of security forces is proceeding way too slowly, the coalition is a misnomer, and reconstruction has barely got off the ground.\n\nCorrection, Oct. 8, 2004: The piece originally misstated the number of non-U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War coalition. It originally said that the non-U.S. coalition partners sent "a total of 800,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as well as 300 combat support battalions, over 225 naval vessels, and 2,800 fixed-wing aircraft. Those aircraft flew 112,000 sorties and droppe
695441
You are horribly uneducated.  If you call increasing our national debt by billions of dollars per year being economically sound, what happens when the bottom falls out.  I would hardly call this economy booming.  You also fail to mention that Bill Clinton operated with a budget surplus while Bush operates with a huge deficit.  This may be because of the war, but the war was Bush's main cause.  Oh andby the way how is that war coming along.  There is nor end in site and it could be decades before we are able to withdraw.  When Clinton dealt with Iraq he did it with surgical precision and took care of the situation in Iraq without having any type of extended conflict.  The main difference is that the rest of the world repected Clinton, but no one respects Bush.  You also fail to mention that since our commander in chief took power, not one, but two countries have began enriched uranium programs.  In case you don't know what that means, it means they have the power to make nuclear weapons.  One leader directly said they did it because of our president's attitude toward him.  That is good leadership.  Also, since NAFTA there has been a net increase in American jobs, my college international business teacher stresses that fact all the time.  So while we have lost low paying jobs we havce gained even more higher paying jobs.  Look it up, it is a fact.  Clinton did not fire those workers.  Poor business management fired those workers.  They were fired because they were overpayed by incompetent bosses.  Don't blame a president for that.  And you can thank Bill Clinton for the lower prices you enjoy because of NAFTA.  So good question, actually it is not a good question because you are comparing apples to oranges and your facts are wrong.  Congratulations.\nP.S. and G.W. wants to cut educational spendning, so if you want to go to college someday, he wants to make sure you have to pay more.\nP.P.S. and your wonderfol president wants it to be legal to essentially "spy" on you and every other citizen.
482254
I just got back from Kuwait and Baghdad i spent a year going between both places. I am active army, so i know the area well.  I do not know for sure about kuwait but I do know that in Baghdad there were vendors walking along the street with gas cans offering to fill your vehicle up for 25 cents a gallon.  Cigarettes are only 50 cents a pack, however, you can get them for 35 cents if you bargain.  Those dvds that you pay 15 bucks for here cost 75 cents to a dollar there.  The american dollar goes a long way over there............and by the way for your friend who responded; there are no car bombers in kuwait, I never heard of a single one going off when I was there.  They do not pay with their lives either, Kuwait is doing allright economically and peace thrives in most of the nation.  The few circumstance we encountered were insurgents from iran, syria, and iraq crossing over to start crap, but they only did drive by's and then sped like hell.  It was rare, but a few times over a year
231087
It is a false and temporary bump in the economic road. We desperately need roads, schools, mass transportation, alternative energy sources, health care, the list goes on, but they have all been cut back to support this immoral and unwinnable war.
317509
How about a story from today....\n\nhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/economy_dc;_ylt=Ah0HjPWTby6.X2_eWHQxKNWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--\n\nModeration... that's not really great... in a wartime economy that should be REALLY strong and with a HUGE debt that is artifically supporting our economy... come on... how long can we push the debt... OH YOU DON'T CARE... I FORGOT...