"We don't know how much the war is going to cost in the future."

[NavarreMan 10]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wars may cost $2.4 trillion over decade

White House brushes off analysis of Iraq, Afghanistan fight as 'speculation'

NBC News and news services

Updated: 5:36 p.m. CT Oct 24, 2007

WASHINGTON - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost as much as $2.4 trillion through the next decade, according to a new analysis Wednesday that the White House brushed off as "speculation."

The analysis, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, provides the most comprehensive and far-reaching estimate to date, taking into account costs previously not counted and assuming large number of forces would remain in the regions.

According to CBO, the U.S. has spent about $600 billion to date on both wars, including $39 billion in diplomatic operations and foreign aid.

If the U.S. cuts the number of troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to 75,000 six years from now, it would cost the U.S. another $1 trillion for military and diplomatic operations and $705 billion in interest payments to pay for the wars through 2017.

Democrats say voters won't stand for it, and so they would consider paying for the military campaigns in brief installments, instead of full one-year terms.

According to NBC News, CBO Director Peter Orszag met with members of the House Budget committee on Wednesday and told them, "It's clear under analysis that the nation is on an unstable fiscal path ... with the higher debt and interest costs."

The White House brushed off the estimate as too conditional.

"It's just a ton of speculation," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "We don't know how much the war is going to cost in the future."

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said voters were suffering from "sticker shock."

"America's future is being held hostage by the cost of the war," he said.

Orszag said a big factor in the increasing price tag for the wars is a shift in Pentagon spending on worn, damaged or destroyed equipment. A CBO study found that, rather than repairing or replacing damaged tanks and other vehicles, the military is upgrading or getting something new.

Orszag used the example of the 120 M-182 tanks that are included in the Pentagon's new funding request.

"At the cost of $5 million per tank, this cost is more than returning the damaged tank to its original state," he said. "If you fully fund these requests, the military will be in a better position in terms of equipment than before the war.

NBC News and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21456930/

Edited October 25, 2007 by NavarreMan

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I read somewhere today that it breaks down to about $8,000 for every American...so far.

[NavarreMan 10]

And we still have not accomplished what we set out to do.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And we still have not accomplished what we set out to do.

I don't think we've really figured out what that should be in the first place. Kind of hard to reach a goal that changes all the time...

As to the replacement vs. repair mentioned above: That's one of the "benefits" of a war. Without it, it would be hard to fund these upgrades.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm looking forward to the movie coming out, November 9 on the issue of this war on 'terror'.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809826835/info

[Jasman0717 9]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wars may cost $2.4 trillion over decade

I don't even know what that means....trillion.....Whatever happened to the balanced budget concept

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Whatever happened to the balanced budget concept

[mendeleev 69]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wars may cost $2.4 trillion over decade

I don't even know what that means....trillion.....Whatever happened to the balanced budget concept

Clinton is no longer president and Gore, who probably would have kept similar fiscal policies, had the election stole away.

Reagan ran up huge deficits, then Bush I, then Bush II.

Even Jimmy Carter had a (very small) surplus one of his years in power. Republicans haven't managed that since Hoover.

[aidan80 9]

The only way to bring things under control is to oust that thief bush and get Clinton back in! After all didn't America have money to spend after she ran the country last time around? Where is all that money now it's in the toilet that's where!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Where is all that money now it's in the toilet that's where!

Not exactly. Fiscal responsibility went down the toilet in early 2001.

The money went a different path:

[Jasman0717 9]

I can't comprehend a trillion. A trillion seconds is 31,710 years

One Trillion Seconds1,000,000,000,000seconds60Seconds per Minute16,666,666,667minutes 60Minutes per Hour277,777,778Hours 24Hours per Day11,574,074.07Days 365Days per Year31,710Years

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't comprehend a trillion. A trillion seconds is 31,710 years

Dang!

[NavarreMan 10]

Now that is the cold hard taste of reality.