Ckicken Little Sez...

[siamamerican]

The US has carried more debt many times in the past compared to its GDP and the economy kept humming.

BTW... U.S. debt is at 353 per cent of GDP, the highest since at least 1921.

Humming along... yeah right!

The tune is "Nearer My God to Thee"

Just like the band played as the Titanic was sinking?

That is interesting ! And if the Iraq war ends up costing $ 2 trillion

by how much does the 353 per cent of GDP increase ?

Interesting, I was comparing anual budget deficits compared to GDP. The numbers you mention above are quite large - what is the source for your numbers? Thanks

[midas]

The US has carried more debt many times in the past compared to its GDP and the economy kept humming.

BTW... U.S. debt is at 353 per cent of GDP, the highest since at least 1921.

Humming along... yeah right!

The tune is "Nearer My God to Thee"

Just like the band played as the Titanic was sinking?

That is interesting ! And if the Iraq war ends up costing $ 2 trillion

by how much does the 353 per cent of GDP increase ?

Interesting, I was comparing anual budget deficits compared to GDP. The numbers you mention above are quite large - what is the source for your numbers? Thanks

So yesterday you were confident how to predict what could happen next - in your own

words " Simply put - history. Not as excitng as unfounded predictions "

Now we all know what happened a few years after 1921...........

[LivinLOS]

[

The US has owed money in the past and will in the future. To who is of little consequence? A dollar owed to Swede is the same as a dollar owed to an American. You seem to know it all - that must be nice. What tells you that the US can't pay its obligations? Probably nothing of any substance. It sure feels good to bash America.

I am actually not one that predicts the demise of the US (tho I do think theres a higher risk of a dollar failure, most possibly through hyper inflation, than ever in the last 50 years).. But..

If US citizens owe money to other US citizens its simply internal money flows, America doesnt get 'poorer'.. If Americans owe money to other countries then obviously paying the interest and the principal syphons money out of the USA and makes them poorer in relative terms to service that debt.. I would think that is obvious.

As to the US paying its overseas obligations.. forget about that bombshell and look at the US simply meeting its own mandated internal obligations.. Have a look at I.O.U.S.A. listen to what David Walker has been trying to tell people.

[stumonster]

Well, for one thing, almost every alternative energy patent is owned by Americans and American corporations.

American patent office patents ? there have been a few pharmaceutical companies that have found out how respected they really are. The rush by the US to get all those FTA's in place was understood by many for what they really were.

[shochu]

lanna,

have you been on a top ten campus?

most of the students have accents and wear glasses.

do you know anyone working for the major firms doing research and applying for patents?

they are mostly immigrants

YES - america is the land of immigrants and that is why the top uni's in the states with their prohibitive tuitions offer scholarships to the brightest from around the world becasue they know once in country it is easier to entice them to stay and work for one of their companies.

it's not rocket science!

[lannarebirth]

lanna,

have you been on a top ten campus?

most of the students have accents and wear glasses.

do you know anyone working for the major firms doing research and applying for patents?

they are mostly immigrants

YES - america is the land of immigrants and that is why the top uni's in the states with their prohibitive tuitions offer scholarships to the brightest from around the world becasue they know once in country it is easier to entice them to stay and work for one of their companies.

it's not rocket science!

We don't call them immigrants. We call them Americans. Bedfore I transferred to the school where I would get my degree more than 25 years ago, I attended, what has become a "top 8" university. Not only did half the grad students then have an accent, but so did most of the professors in science majors. My calculus prof didn't speak English at all, but he was very good at writing numbers on a blackboard then bowing before walking out. It's the same as it ever was.

[siamamerican]

The US has carried more debt many times in the past compared to its GDP and the economy kept humming.

BTW... U.S. debt is at 353 per cent of GDP, the highest since at least 1921.

Humming along... yeah right!

The tune is "Nearer My God to Thee"

Just like the band played as the Titanic was sinking?

That is interesting ! And if the Iraq war ends up costing $ 2 trillion

by how much does the 353 per cent of GDP increase ?

Interesting, I was comparing anual budget deficits compared to GDP. The numbers you mention above are quite large - what is the source for your numbers? Thanks

So yesterday you were confident how to predict what could happen next - in your own

words " Simply put - history. Not as excitng as unfounded predictions "

Now we all know what happened a few years after 1921...........

That was your answer to my question. I'll try again; what is your souce of of your 353% of GDP?

Huh? A few years after 1921. That would be the roaring twenties! Even after the 1929 crash the market anual return for the decade was 15%. Not to many similarities to todays market, but fun for drama sake! The markets were trading at 60 P/E ratios compared to 16 P/E today.

It's funny how people loose a little money and panick. I would bet you were one of those that got in when everybody was making money and got out recently. In that case you lost quite a bit.

[midas]

The US has carried more debt many times in the past compared to its GDP and the economy kept humming.

BTW... U.S. debt is at 353 per cent of GDP, the highest since at least 1921.

Humming along... yeah right!

The tune is "Nearer My God to Thee"

Just like the band played as the Titanic was sinking?

That is interesting ! And if the Iraq war ends up costing $ 2 trillion

by how much does the 353 per cent of GDP increase ?

Interesting, I was comparing anual budget deficits compared to GDP. The numbers you mention above are quite large - what is the source for your numbers? Thanks

So yesterday you were confident how to predict what could happen next - in your own

words " Simply put - history. Not as excitng as unfounded predictions "

Now we all know what happened a few years after 1921...........

That was your answer to my question. I'll try again; what is your souce of of your 353% of GDP?

Huh? A few years after 1921. That would be the roaring twenties! Even after the 1929 crash the market anual return for the decade was 15%. Not to many similarities to todays market, but fun for drama sake! The markets were trading at 60 P/E ratios compared to 16 P/E today.

It's funny how people loose a little money and panick. I would bet you were one of those that got in when everybody was making money and got out recently. In that case you lost quite a bit.

You need to get gregybn to answer that one ! I didnt post that.

I havent lost anything actually You do get stressed easily dont you

Go an have a lie down and let the old blood pressure recover

[KhunG]

I just returned from the US. It is truly in bad shape. I don't think it will come out of this slump for at least 2 years. It will rise out of the ashes of the Bush Administration and economic decay to still be a leader, but less than ever before.

I live in the US, and it's undergoing a correction after a very long period of growth, but it's still in generally good shape. Anyone who wants to work can still get a job, and prices are up primarily due to high fuel prices, but wages are staying ahead of inflation, and the subprime mortgage debacle is being worked through. The subprimes were really a kind of welfare backed by greedy banks. Activists complained that poor people couldn't get home loans. The rules were changed to allow loans, but they had to pay for the increased risk.

BTW: re "Bush Administration and economic decay": For five years of this administration the US had the highest rate of economic growth in the developed world. Starting about nine months ago, the economy began to slow, though it is still growing. The difference? The Democratic party took power in both houses of Congress a little over a year ago.

Edited March 27, 2008 by KhunG

[midas]

I just returned from the US. It is truly in bad shape. I don't think it will come out of this slump for at least 2 years. It will rise out of the ashes of the Bush Administration and economic decay to still be a leader, but less than ever before.

I live in the US, and it's undergoing a correction after a very long period of growth, but it's still in generally good shape. Anyone who wants to work can still get a job, and prices are up primarily due to high fuel prices, but wages are staying ahead of inflation, and the subprime mortgage debacle is being worked through. The subprimes were really a kind of welfare backed by greedy banks. Activists complained that poor people couldn't get home loans. The rules were changed to allow loans, but they had to pay for the increased risk.

BTW: re "Bush Administration and economic decay": For five years of this administration the US had the highest rate of economic growth in the developed world. Starting about nine months ago, the economy began to slow, though it is still growing. The difference? The Democratic party took power in both houses of Congress a little over a year ago.

Can you please explain how USA can afford to keep staying in Iraq ? You mention nothing about that ?

[siamamerican]

Can you please explain how USA can afford to keep staying in Iraq ? You mention nothing about that ?

Through taxes and borrowing money. I wish it was more difficult. I'm not a big fan of the war and it hasn't helped the economy or the US reputation. It made sense in the beginning, knowing what I knew at the time which was very little. I don't think it will have a lasting impact on the economy 10 years down the road, but what a mess.

[midas]

Can you please explain how USA can afford to keep staying in Iraq ? You mention nothing about that ?

Through taxes and borrowing money. I wish it was more difficult. I'm not a big fan of the war and it hasn't helped the economy or the US reputation. It made sense in the beginning, knowing what I knew at the time which was very little. I don't think it will have a lasting impact on the economy 10 years down the road, but what a mess.

The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" [/color]and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire

what evidence do you have to support such a bold statement siamamerican ?

[twschw]

The quote in context:

On January 3, 2008 at a campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, a questioner said, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." McCain responded,

"Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me. I hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day."

source: Wikipedia

[KhunG]

Can you please explain how USA can afford to keep staying in Iraq ? You mention nothing about that ?

Certainly. The Iraq war, from 2003 through January 2008, has cost the US less than we pay out in one year for social security. If you take out the fact that the armed forces will still have to be paid for, trained, etc regardless of whether they are in Iraq, it is a trivial additional expenditure.

twsch: excellent.

Edited March 28, 2008 by KhunG

[midas]

Can you please explain how USA can afford to keep staying in Iraq ? You mention nothing about that ?

Certainly. The Iraq war, from 2003 through January 2008, has cost the US less than we pay out in one year for social security. If you take out the fact that the armed forces will still have to be paid for, trained, etc regardless of whether they are in Iraq, it is a trivial additional expenditure.

twsch: excellent.

So are you saying that in one year USA pays out 2 trillion dollars in social

security payments because this was the cost of the Iraq war quoted a copule of weeks ago ?

And my point about the John McCain quote is q

[midas]

Can you please explain how USA can afford to keep staying in Iraq ? You mention nothing about that ?

Certainly. The Iraq war, from 2003 through January 2008, has cost the US less than we pay out in one year for social security. If you take out the fact that the armed forces will still have to be paid for, trained, etc regardless of whether they are in Iraq, it is a trivial additional expenditure.

twsch: excellent.

So are you saying that in one year USA pays out 2 trillion dollars in social

security payments because this was the cost of the Iraq war quoted a couple of weeks ago ?

And my point about the John McCain quote is quite frankly how can anyone say

with certainty how long you yanks are going be there or how much it will really cost

But one thing is for sure that money should be repairing your crumbling infrastructure

and your decaying school system

[KhunG]

So are you saying that in one year USA pays out 2 trillion dollars in social

security payments because this was the cost of the Iraq war quoted a couple of weeks ago ?

And my point about the John McCain quote is quite frankly how can anyone say

with certainty how long you yanks are going be there or how much it will really cost

But one thing is for sure that money should be repairing your crumbling infrastructure

and your decaying school system

Your number is false. We have currently spent a little over 500 billion on the Iraq war. That is from a website with a nifty little real-time tracker, and which opposes the war on the basis of cost. That includes things such as deployed soldiers salaries that we would have paid if they were not deployed anyway, but without the hazard pay. We pay out more than 500 billion a year in Social Security, which I believe does not include administrative or Medicare costs.

Your point about John McCain was also distorted. Who knows what it will cost to keep our military where ever we station them? We've kept them in Germany, Japan, Korea, on the high seas, etc. That is what John McCain is talking about, post conflict.

BTW: Thanks for the heads up on our crumbling infrastructure. I just got off an 11 lane concrete super highway (5 in each direction, plus an HOV lane) where the minimum safe speed to avoid being a traffic hazard is 80 mph regardless of what the posted speed limit is. I was pleased to see as I passed that the cranes and construction crews were making good progress on the new University annex in the relatively small town near where I live. We tend to believe in continuing education around here and it's a pain to have to drive into the big city for classes that the local community colleges don't offer.

I will admit I'm less than pleased that the NEA has managed to insert a bunch of socialist propagandists to operate as teachers in the primary grades of our schools (which these days are built like little community colleges), but our kids are smart and tend to reject a lot of that garbage as they get older and start observing reality for themselves. You obviously have no idea of what the US is like, other than the propaganda that you've bought into. Come on over, I'll put you up for a couple of nights and show you around. Not next month, though. I'll be in Thailand

You want to say there are things wrong with the US? Okay, I agree. We've got a permanent underclass, trapped by the socialist policies of their Democratic party plantation masters. They live in violent, blighted inner cities where they are given handouts to stay home, do drugs, procreate, and vote for more handouts. That is a tiny portion of what the US is like. We have a huge illegal immigration problem, approximately 20 million. Most are hard working, decent people that are trying to make a better life, but can't assimilate because they must live "under the radar." Unfortunately a growing minority of the illegal alien population are violent gangs and other criminal types, who prey mostly on their own countrymen, but also sometimes on the legal US population. We've got a permanant overclass of political leaders who take the money we earn to spend on keeping themselves in power, and left wing academics who dominate the humanities, journalism and legal portions of our Universities because they couldn't hold down a real job. Luckily those same Universities have many of the best scientists, engineers, medical doctors, and economists in the world, so we'll continue to attract some the best and brightest from around the US and the world into our "decaying school system". There, I've given you a bunch of real problems in the US for you to bash us about, instead of the distortions you've been using.

The offer I made two paragraphs up is real. I'd like to show someone who believes the things you do the reality of what the US is like. I'll even show you some of the blighted inner city that is apparently what you believe the majority of the US is like (but I won't stop the car). PM me if you plan on visiting southeast Texas.

Edited March 28, 2008 by KhunG

[midas]

So are you saying that in one year USA pays out 2 trillion dollars in social

security payments because this was the cost of the Iraq war quoted a couple of weeks ago ?

And my point about the John McCain quote is quite frankly how can anyone say

with certainty how long you yanks are going be there or how much it will really cost

But one thing is for sure that money should be repairing your crumbling infrastructure

and your decaying school system

Your number is false. We have currently spent a little over 500 billion on the Iraq war. That is from a website with a nifty little real-time tracker, and which opposes the war on the basis of cost. That includes things such as deployed soldiers salaries that we would have paid if they were not deployed anyway, but without the hazard pay. We pay out more than 500 billion a year in Social Security, which I believe does not include administrative or Medicare costs.

Your point about John McCain was also distorted. Who knows what it will cost to keep our military where ever we station them? We've kept them in Germany, Japan, Korea, on the high seas, etc. That is what John McCain is talking about, post conflict.

BTW: Thanks for the heads up on our crumbling infrastructure. I just got off an 11 lane concrete super highway (5 in each direction, plus an HOV lane) where the minimum safe speed to avoid being a traffic hazard is 80 mph regardless of what the posted speed limit is. I was pleased to see as I passed that the cranes and construction crews were making good progress on the new University annex in the relatively small town near where I live. We tend to believe in continuing education around here and it's a pain to have to drive into the big city for classes that the local community colleges don't offer.

in Germany, Japan, Korea,

I will admit I'm less than pleased that the NEA has managed to insert a bunch of socialist propagandists to operate as teachers in the primary grades of our schools (which these days are built like little community colleges), but our kids are smart and tend to reject a lot of that garbage as they get older and start observing reality for themselves. You obviously have no idea of what the US is like, other than the propaganda that you've bought into. Come on over, I'll put you up for a couple of nights and show you around. Not next month, though. I'll be in Thailand

You want to say there are things wrong with the US? Okay, I agree. We've got a permanent underclass, trapped by the socialist policies of their Democratic party plantation masters. They live in violent, blighted inner cities where they are given handouts to stay home, do drugs, procreate, and vote for more handouts. That is a tiny portion of what the US is like. We have a huge illegal immigration problem, approximately 20 million. Most are hard working, decent people that are trying to make a better life, but can't assimilate because they must live "under the radar." Unfortunately a growing minority of the illegal alien population are violent gangs and other criminal types, who prey mostly on their own countrymen, but also sometimes on the legal US population. We've got a permanant overclass of political leaders who take the money we earn to spend on keeping themselves in power, and left wing academics who dominate the humanities, journalism and legal portions of our Universities because they couldn't hold down a real job. Luckily those same Universities have many of the best scientists, engineers, medical doctors, and economists in the world, so we'll continue to attract some the best and brightest from around the US and the world into our "decaying school system". There, I've given you a bunch of real problems in the US for you to bash us about, instead of the distortions you've been using.

The offer I made two paragraphs up is real. I'd like to show someone who believes the things you do the reality of what the US is like. I'll even show you some of the blighted inner city that is apparently what you believe the majority of the US is like (but I won't stop the car). PM me if you plan on visiting southeast Texas.

Yes but who knows when or of ever Iraq will reach a stage of " post conflict " ?

It doesnt look promising at the moment does it ? And you cannot compare military activities

in Germany, Japan, Korea with what is happening now in Iraq.

And what happens if your warmongering VP Cheney decides to attack Iran

- that will certainly cause a cost blow out !

[midas]

The offer I made two paragraphs up is real. I'd like to show someone who believes the things you do the reality of what the US is like. I'll even show you some of the blighted inner city that is apparently what you believe the majority of the US is like (but I won't stop the car). PM me if you plan on visiting southeast Texas.

KhunG, I posted previous paragraph without reading the end of your message so I missed out on

thanking you for your offer. I didn't mean to be that rude ! You seem like a decent person

offering to accommodate a perfect stranger.

I am familiar with the USA actually and have even been to Houston and Dallas and I worked

in Los Angeles for twelve months. I used to like the USA. Admittedly I haven't been there for about four years now

But my impatience began when your fellow Americans voted GBW back into office for a second term

In view of what damage he has caused your country in terms of international relations during his first term-

I cannot believe they gave him a second opportunity

[siamamerican]

Can you please explain how USA can afford to keep staying in Iraq ? You mention nothing about that ?

Certainly. The Iraq war, from 2003 through January 2008, has cost the US less than we pay out in one year for social security. If you take out the fact that the armed forces will still have to be paid for, trained, etc regardless of whether they are in Iraq, it is a trivial additional expenditure.

twsch: excellent.

So are you saying that in one year USA pays out 2 trillion dollars in social

security payments because this was the cost of the Iraq war quoted a copule of weeks ago ?

And my point about the John McCain quote is q

No, that is not what he is saying. That is what a silly man that doesn't care about the truth and making a valid argument is saying. He is making an argument that the incremental cost (still would incur a portion of the costs of the war, regardless if we were in Iraq or not) of the war is what we pay out in SS every year. Not sure if that is accurate, but that is his argument.

Read his post before you reply. In your case, read 2 or 3 times and use online dictionaries for the big words.

[KhunG]

Yes but who knows when or of ever Iraq will reach a stage of " post conflict " ?

It doesnt look promising at the moment does it ?

Actually it does. The Sunnis have turned and Al Quada in Iraq has been nearly destroyed. The Mahdi Army was kind enough to keep their heads down while that was taken care of, and now has popped back up when we can deal with them. Insurgencies historically have taken 7-10 years to quell. This one looks to be headed toward the shorter end of that range.

I'm assuming you get your news from European sources, so I wouldn't be surprised if that information didn't get to you. Heck, in France they thought the Coalition was losing the "war" part of Iraq (against Sadam's army) right up until the victory. I lived in Europe for a couple years, before 9/11, and I was amazed at the unrelentingly negative press about anything American, even then. Even in two American branded publications I subscribed to: Newsweek Europe and the IHT. If you like I can post links to stories that helped me form the opinion I express in the first paragraph.

Edited March 28, 2008 by KhunG

[KhunG]

KhunG, I posted previous paragraph without reading the end of your message so I missed out on

thanking you for your offer. I didn't mean to be that rude ! You seem like a decent person

offering to accommodate a perfect stranger.

No problem. I expect as we're both here we have something in common, a shared interest in things Thai.

I am familiar with the USA actually and have even been to Houston and Dallas and I worked

in Los Angeles for twelve months. I used to like the USA. Admittedly I haven't been there for about four years now

But my impatience began when your fellow Americans voted GBW back into office for a second term

Personally, it saddens me that your disagreement with who we decide should run our country has made you negative about all things American.

In view of what damage he has caused your country in terms of international relations during his first term-

I cannot believe they gave him a second opportunity

I don't buy into the premise. Certainly the noisiest people, who tend to be of a certain political bent and dominate media, humanities in acadamia, entertainment, etc don't like the US or it's policies. I also don't take much stock in polls of 1500 people who are willing to waste 20 minutes of their time on the phone with a stranger, either. It strikes me as a bit narcissistic, which would tend put them in the same political group as the folks above. Most people I know, and I, say "no thank you" when a pollster calls and hang up. We're in primary season here, and the pollsters are being embarrassed again and again when actual results come out.

There is a poll that I do consider representative, though. It's called an election, where all the people can vote. Most of the leaders of countries that allied with the US in the war were re-elected at least once. Several leaders of historically allied countries that were virulently against US policy have been replaced with more pro-US leaders. I travel a lot and the perception that the world is against the US isn't accurate, just because noisy people say so.

If it makes you feel better, I'm also pretty unhappy with the President, but I imagine for very different reasons than you are.

Edited March 28, 2008 by KhunG

[LivinLOS]

Can you please explain how USA can afford to keep staying in Iraq ? You mention nothing about that ?

Certainly. The Iraq war, from 2003 through January 2008, has cost the US less than we pay out in one year for social security. If you take out the fact that the armed forces will still have to be paid for, trained, etc regardless of whether they are in Iraq, it is a trivial additional expenditure.

twsch: excellent.

So are you saying that in one year USA pays out 2 trillion dollars in social

security payments because this was the cost of the Iraq war quoted a copule of weeks ago ?

And my point about the John McCain quote is q

No, that is not what he is saying. That is what a silly man that doesn't care about the truth and making a valid argument is saying. He is making an argument that the incremental cost (still would incur a portion of the costs of the war, regardless if we were in Iraq or not) of the war is what we pay out in SS every year. Not sure if that is accurate, but that is his argument.

Read his post before you reply. In your case, read 2 or 3 times and use online dictionaries for the big words.

2 trillion plus before interest

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publication...2/76_83mr32.pdf

And to put some of those mind boggling numbers in perspective..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html

[LaoPo]

2 trillion plus before interest

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publication...2/76_83mr32.pdf

And to put some of those mind boggling numbers in perspective..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html

Maybe 3 Trillion ?

"Irag war: the Real Cost"

March 26, 2008

In the recently released book The Three Trillion Dollar War, Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz conclude that the Bush administration drastically underestimated the economic consequences of the Iraq war: "By the administration's own reckoning ... the cost of the Iraq war, counting only the money officially appropriated, will soon be some $600 billion. ... But even the $600 billion number is disingenuous -- which is to say false. The true cost of the war in Iraq, according to our calculations, will, by the time America has extricated itself, exceed $3 trillion. And this is a deliberately conservative estimate. The ultimate cost may well be much higher."

LINDA BILMES*

Bilmes is a former Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce. A professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, she co-authored The Three Trillion Dollar War. Bilmes said today: "There is no such thing as a free lunch and there is no such thing as a free war. After five years of war, 4,000 [American] deaths, 60,000 injuries, $600 billion spent so far (with the price tag expected to reach $3 trillion once we add veterans costs, military reset, interest on the debt, and economic losses), the U.S. public is waking up to the fact that the war is hurting the economy."

She added: "In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll (completed March 14-16), 71 percent of Americans say that government spending on the war in Iraq is partly responsible for the nation's economic troubles. The public has got it right: In our new book The Three Trillion Dollar War, we show how the war has weakened our economy."

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1675

* Linda Bilmes:

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~lbilmes/index.htm

You can now start bickering and flaming me again, as some of you are doing, but, as I said many times before:

Don't shoot the messenger

And, if you're planning do so, remember: I didn't write that book and I didn't conduct that poll.

If you wish to attack me because I cut-and-paste, I suggest you bicker, flame, bash and start attacking also upon most of Thaivisa Moderators when they cut-and-paste news and/or other articles; let's see how long you're be able to survive here on TV.

I am sick and tired of being attacked by some of you when I report news. If you are not able to cope with it, don't read it.

LaoPo

[midas]

2 trillion plus before interest

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publication...2/76_83mr32.pdf

And to put some of those mind boggling numbers in perspective..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html

Maybe 3 Trillion ?

"Irag war: the Real Cost"

March 26, 2008

In the recently released book The Three Trillion Dollar War, Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz conclude that the Bush administration drastically underestimated the economic consequences of the Iraq war: "By the administration's own reckoning ... the cost of the Iraq war, counting only the money officially appropriated, will soon be some $600 billion. ... But even the $600 billion number is disingenuous -- which is to say false. The true cost of the war in Iraq, according to our calculations, will, by the time America has extricated itself, exceed $3 trillion. And this is a deliberately conservative estimate. The ultimate cost may well be much higher."

LINDA BILMES*

Bilmes is a former Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce. A professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, she co-authored The Three Trillion Dollar War. Bilmes said today: "There is no such thing as a free lunch and there is no such thing as a free war. After five years of war, 4,000 [American] deaths, 60,000 injuries, $600 billion spent so far (with the price tag expected to reach $3 trillion once we add veterans costs, military reset, interest on the debt, and economic losses), the U.S. public is waking up to the fact that the war is hurting the economy."

She added: "In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll (completed March 14-16), 71 percent of Americans say that government spending on the war in Iraq is partly responsible for the nation's economic troubles. The public has got it right: In our new book The Three Trillion Dollar War, we show how the war has weakened our economy."

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1675

* Linda Bilmes:

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~lbilmes/index.htm

You can now start bickering and flaming me again, as some of you are doing, but, as I said many times before:

Don't shoot the messenger

And, if you're planning do so, remember: I didn't write that book and I didn't conduct that poll.

If you wish to attack me because I cut-and-paste, I suggest you bicker, flame, bash and start attacking also upon most of Thaivisa Moderators when they cut-and-paste news and/or other articles; let's see how long you're be able to survive here on TV.

I am sick and tired of being attacked by some of you when I report news. If you are not able to cope with it, don't read it.

LaoPo

LaoPo that is interesting - I guess this is too hard for some to accept - someone

must be wrong but then it wouldnt be the current US Admin would it ? ! No no no perish the thought

because they had WMD's in Iraq didnt they ?

[LaoPo]

LaoPo that is interesting - I guess this is too hard for some to accept - someone

must be wrong but then it wouldnt be the current US Admin would it ? ! No no no perish the thought

because they had WMD's in Iraq didnt they ?

Interesting is an understatement.

Shocking springs to mind if one realizes that this expected/estimated $3 Trillion ("The ultimate cost may well be much higher") is just the costs for the US.

Add the costs of the allies and their armies like the Brits and other countries, including my own. I have no idea what the total costs will be, in the end, and we probably will never know.

What a bluddy waste, not to speak of the thousands of Western families who lost their loved ones.....for what ?

Note:

I read in another article that the costs for army-fuel alone in Iraq is an estimated $ 1 Billion per week....and that is imported fuel....

LaoPo

[cclub75]

Actually it does. The Sunnis have turned and Al Quada in Iraq has been nearly destroyed. The Mahdi Army was kind enough to keep their heads down while that was taken care of, and now has popped back up when we can deal with them. Insurgencies historically have taken 7-10 years to quell. This one looks to be headed toward the shorter end of that range.

It's not surprising that with such non sense, the US are loosing the war. At least, the war in the heads...

Sunnis and "Al Qaeda" are definitely 2 differents things. As for the Mahdi Army, it's more likely the whole shia community...

And you should ask yourselves : why do they wake up now ? Iran of course.

Bottom line : it's not an "insurgency"... It's just 85 % of the whole country that hate the US, discounted the "government's forces", right in the middle of a region that hates the US too !

How do you expect to "win" in such strategic context ?

There is nothing to win anymore.

I mean : it's good to be pro active, and self confident. But sometimes the line between that and self delusion is very thin...

[siamamerican]

Can you please explain how USA can afford to keep staying in Iraq ? You mention nothing about that ?

Certainly. The Iraq war, from 2003 through January 2008, has cost the US less than we pay out in one year for social security. If you take out the fact that the armed forces will still have to be paid for, trained, etc regardless of whether they are in Iraq, it is a trivial additional expenditure.

twsch: excellent.

So are you saying that in one year USA pays out 2 trillion dollars in social

security payments because this was the cost of the Iraq war quoted a copule of weeks ago ?

And my point about the John McCain quote is q

No, that is not what he is saying. That is what a silly man that doesn't care about the truth and making a valid argument is saying. He is making an argument that the incremental cost (still would incur a portion of the costs of the war, regardless if we were in Iraq or not) of the war is what we pay out in SS every year. Not sure if that is accurate, but that is his argument.

Read his post before you reply. In your case, read 2 or 3 times and use online dictionaries for the big words.

2 trillion plus before interest

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publication...2/76_83mr32.pdf

And to put some of those mind boggling numbers in perspective..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html

The #s you stated above have been posted in the prior posts. Also, cutting & pasting articles has been, to say the least, a little overdone. You have made some good posts on other topics and would like to hear your opinion of what you read and have experienced.

I don't ague that the #s are incorrect, because they aren't. If you read the post that I was refering to, you would see that that post wasn't questioning the 2 trillion. He was bringing a different perspective to the table that I thought was interesting. What is the incremental financial cost of the war, considering many of the costs are fixed. I don't know if his analysis is correct, but worth discussion.

[siamamerican]

So are you saying that in one year USA pays out 2 trillion dollars in social

security payments because this was the cost of the Iraq war quoted a couple of weeks ago ?

And my point about the John McCain quote is quite frankly how can anyone say

with certainty how long you yanks are going be there or how much it will really cost

But one thing is for sure that money should be repairing your crumbling infrastructure

and your decaying school system

Your number is false. We have currently spent a little over 500 billion on the Iraq war. That is from a website with a nifty little real-time tracker, and which opposes the war on the basis of cost. That includes things such as deployed soldiers salaries that we would have paid if they were not deployed anyway, but without the hazard pay. We pay out more than 500 billion a year in Social Security, which I believe does not include administrative or Medicare costs.

Your point about John McCain was also distorted. Who knows what it will cost to keep our military where ever we station them? We've kept them in Germany, Japan, Korea, on the high seas, etc. That is what John McCain is talking about, post conflict.

BTW: Thanks for the heads up on our crumbling infrastructure. I just got off an 11 lane concrete super highway (5 in each direction, plus an HOV lane) where the minimum safe speed to avoid being a traffic hazard is 80 mph regardless of what the posted speed limit is. I was pleased to see as I passed that the cranes and construction crews were making good progress on the new University annex in the relatively small town near where I live. We tend to believe in continuing education around here and it's a pain to have to drive into the big city for classes that the local community colleges don't offer.

I will admit I'm less than pleased that the NEA has managed to insert a bunch of socialist propagandists to operate as teachers in the primary grades of our schools (which these days are built like little community colleges), but our kids are smart and tend to reject a lot of that garbage as they get older and start observing reality for themselves. You obviously have no idea of what the US is like, other than the propaganda that you've bought into. Come on over, I'll put you up for a couple of nights and show you around. Not next month, though. I'll be in Thailand

You want to say there are things wrong with the US? Okay, I agree. We've got a permanent underclass, trapped by the socialist policies of their Democratic party plantation masters. They live in violent, blighted inner cities where they are given handouts to stay home, do drugs, procreate, and vote for more handouts. That is a tiny portion of what the US is like. We have a huge illegal immigration problem, approximately 20 million. Most are hard working, decent people that are trying to make a better life, but can't assimilate because they must live "under the radar." Unfortunately a growing minority of the illegal alien population are violent gangs and other criminal types, who prey mostly on their own countrymen, but also sometimes on the legal US population. We've got a permanant overclass of political leaders who take the money we earn to spend on keeping themselves in power, and left wing academics who dominate the humanities, journalism and legal portions of our Universities because they couldn't hold down a real job. Luckily those same Universities have many of the best scientists, engineers, medical doctors, and economists in the world, so we'll continue to attract some the best and brightest from around the US and the world into our "decaying school system". There, I've given you a bunch of real problems in the US for you to bash us about, instead of the distortions you've been using.

The offer I made two paragraphs up is real. I'd like to show someone who believes the things you do the reality of what the US is like. I'll even show you some of the blighted inner city that is apparently what you believe the majority of the US is like (but I won't stop the car). PM me if you plan on visiting southeast Texas.

Krung,

Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down. I can only hope Loa Po or midas, don't post another unrelated article and pat themselves on the back as the defendants of truth.

Quote:

We've got a permanent overclass of political leaders who take the money we earn to spend on keeping themselves in power, and left wing academics who dominate the humanities, journalism and legal portions of our Universities because they couldn't hold down a real job. Luckily those same Universities have many of the best scientists, engineers, medical doctors, and economists in the world, so we'll continue to attract some the best and brightest from around the US and the world into our "decaying school system".

Quite funny, but you run the risk of a couple posters taking you literally. I assume what you wrote was partially in jest - not that much of it isn't true.

[LaoPo]

Krung,

Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down. I can only hope Loa Po or midas, don't post another unrelated article and pat themselves on the back as the defendants of truth.

Siamamerican:

1. If you answer other posters, please spell their names correct; it's nothing more than being polite.

2. Please refrain from mentioning my name in a bickering way every other post if I have nothing to do with KhunG or Midas' post(s). Correct spelling of my forum name is a pre also unless you are suffering from dyslexia which would be excusable. I know, because several family members have a dyslexia problem.

Be a good sport and Gentleman.

LaoPo