How Much Money Does This War Cost The Americans?

[zhelynd]

Approximately 3 weeks since US starts its campaign, US government have already
spend about 75 billion US dollars directly on the war.

Since the war is expected to last for some time, Pantegon have already layout a
war budget of $344billion USD to removing saddam.

The $344Billion is just a small portion, more greater economic costs(or risks) of the
war include:

1) Hundreds of American Soldreds, thousands of Iraqis soldreds and civilians' lives
2) The direct economic impact of war, including consumer spending, stock market,
3) A rocketing oil price that may devaste some american industries.
4) The future military and security budget may be a lot more higher than before
5) Opportunity cost of the war, money spent on the war that could been spent on
other more constructive things.

That's the cost analysis of the war, lets take a look at what AlterNet have to say

"Why does the federal government want to spend $344 billion on the Pentagon,
when the federal government currently spends only $42 billion on education, $26
billion on affordable housing, $6 billion on Head Start, and only $1 billion on school
construction? Does it appear that our national priorities are mixed up or what?"

some interesting facts are also being stated in the same article:

"In our country ¡V the richest nation in the world ¡V 14 million kids attend schools
that need extensive renovation or replacement. In international test scores, our
eighth graders rank 18 in math and 19 in science, below Slovenia, Singapore, and
Hungary, among others."

"The child poverty rate hovers at over 15 percent, meaning that about one in six
kids lives in poverty. "

"Over 40 million Americans, including about 10 million children, have no health
insurance."

Since Bush choose to ignore all these problems to pursuit a much more noble and
important quest - removing Saddam, what do you think the outcome of the next
election will be?

Can the Americans afford to have Bush for president for another 4 years?

Reference link: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11427

[Z]

wow. thats probably right too. $344 billion?!!!! shit, how big is the entire US economy? trillions?

:w00t:

[eng60340]

are the iraqis suppose to compensate this amount to US for "liberating" them with those multi-million dollar bombs ?

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by Z@3 April 2003 - 08:28
wow. thats probably right too. $344 billion?!!!! shit, how big is the entire US economy? trillions?

:w00t:
If you caught Bush's proposed budget, he was dedicating so much money to different things that you really couldn't write out that many 0s.

He should let his financial planners do the math next time. ;)

:ninja:

[sAdam]

how much do u think state sponsored terrorism costs the U.S. and world economy?

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by eng60340@3 April 2003 - 08:31
are the iraqis suppose to compensate this amount to US for "liberating" them with those multi-million dollar bombs ?
Yes, with their oil reserves, and by assigning all the rebuilding contracts to American companies once all this is over.

(And in the Baghdad branch of McDonalds ;) )

[MagicNakor]

I think Baghdad already has a McDonalds...

I know there's been one in India for a while now, too. It's a shame.

:ninja:

[zhelynd]

Originally posted by sAdam@3 April 2003 - 10:16
how much do u think state sponsored terrorism costs the U.S. and world economy?
I think the act of terrorism really don't need much state supports, all it needs is a strong brlief + a gernade or pistol, that's all they need to blow up the world trade centre

[zhelynd]

Originally posted by eng60340@3 April 2003 - 09:31
are the iraqis suppose to compensate this amount to US for "liberating" them with those multi-million dollar bombs ?
I think USA is responsible to spend a huge amount of money to rebuild Iraq after wiping out most its infrustructures during the war. Iraq have no economy, perhaps the only way for US to get a breakeven return for the war is to claim ownership of all oil fiends in Iraq.

[puremindmatters]

I'm by no means a financial expert, but I really don't know where the money should be coming from.
Maybe I just can't read these figures right:

US deficit stats (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableViewFixed.asp?SelectedTable=37&FirstYear=2001&LastYear=2002&Freq=Qtr)

Some of the allies who contributed a great deal to previous wars are seemingly pretty unwilling this time (e.g. Germany and France).

[Rat Faced]

How about showing the FEDERAL Government Tables instead of those including State Government?

US Federal Government Expenditure (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableViewFixed.asp?SelectedTable=38&FirstYear=2001&LastYear=2002&Freq=Qtr)


And how about a closer look at those Defence figures, instead of a summary showing that 'The Gulf' is costing $344Billion, which is crap.

US Defence Budget 2001-2002 (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableViewFixed.asp?SelectedTable=47&FirstYear=2001&LastYear=2002&Freq=Qtr)

Of course that means the overall spending has increased by only $33Billion over the year before, a lot of money I'll agree...however a lot less than the $344Billion originaly claimed.

Now, how about adding inflation into the figures?

You may find that in REAL terms, its a lot less than $33Billion increase in spending over 2001.



However, remember that we are now entering 1st quarter of 2003 (assuming that your Financial Year is the same as UK's (6th April - 5th April)) and the war is still ongoing.


I think you forget, most economical costs involved are recoverable from normal expenses. Wages still have to be paid whether you are at war or not. Exercises involving Live Firing are ongoing, whether at war or not (just not on as large a scale). Savings are made where the troops are not now stationed, as they are in the field.

Then there are the economical benefits: eg most of the rebuilding work will be given to US firms (paid for by Iraqi oil), The Hollywood films that will now be made (bringing in $100millions from the rest of the world as they flock to the cinema), The fact that 'Gasoline' will be cheaper for a few more years....and the knock on benefits to business'....



The REAL cost of war are 'intangibles', not covered in the 'economics' of the war itself......ie The cost of a human life, the cost of an injury, the cost of looking after the injured that are then 'demobbed' because of their injuries.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by zhelynd@3 April 2003 - 02:03
Approximately 3 weeks since US starts its campaign, US government have already
spend about 75 billion US dollars directly on the war.

Since the war is expected to last for some time, Pantegon have already layout a
war budget of $344billion USD to removing saddam.

The $344Billion is just a small portion, more greater economic costs(or risks) of the
war include:

1) Hundreds of American Soldreds, thousands of Iraqis soldreds and civilians' lives
2) The direct economic impact of war, including consumer spending, stock market,
3) A rocketing oil price that may devaste some american industries.
4) The future military and security budget may be a lot more higher than before
5) Opportunity cost of the war, money spent on the war that could been spent on
other more constructive things.

That's the cost analysis of the war, lets take a look at what AlterNet have to say

"Why does the federal government want to spend $344 billion on the Pentagon,
when the federal government currently spends only $42 billion on education, $26
billion on affordable housing, $6 billion on Head Start, and only $1 billion on school
construction? Does it appear that our national priorities are mixed up or what?"

some interesting facts are also being stated in the same article:

"In our country ¡V the richest nation in the world ¡V 14 million kids attend schools
that need extensive renovation or replacement. In international test scores, our
eighth graders rank 18 in math and 19 in science, below Slovenia, Singapore, and
Hungary, among others."

"The child poverty rate hovers at over 15 percent, meaning that about one in six
kids lives in poverty. "

"Over 40 million Americans, including about 10 million children, have no health
insurance."

Since Bush choose to ignore all these problems to pursuit a much more noble and
important quest - removing Saddam, what do you think the outcome of the next
election will be?

Can the Americans afford to have Bush for president for another 4 years?

Reference link: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11427
Well,

We already had the soldiers on payroll. That expense existed with or without war.

We have all these cool weapons that deteriorate if they are not used and we have to constantly make more anyway.

The soldiers are always being trained. This is the ultimate training camp.

Sorry but its true.

The soldiers have to eat. MRI's may cost a little more, but when you pay $500 for a hammer, $15 for a ration isn't a big deal.

When you speak of cost, you should rule out existing cost and focus on additional costs.

Rising oil prices?
Dude...Look around you.
This is not that big a planet. We do not have a limitless supply of oil.
Price increases are inevitable.
Thats what happens when supply drops but demand keeps growing.

To be brutally honest, the lessons learned in this small war are more than worth the few hundred billion they are costing.

And when you compare the number of lives lost in this war to the number of lives that were lost due to Saddam's savagery before the war and potential in absence of war, there is no contest.

As to your point that we spend more money protecting Americans than we do on some of the privleges of being an American...
You're right...We do.
Why do you think you still have those priveleges?
Life is not black and white.
Never was, never will be.
And war is never the best choice.
Sometimes, it is the only choice you have.

Well...You could die.

No...Not really my choice of preference.

Yours?

Peace

Oh, and can we afford to have Bush for another 4 years?
I don't know. He doesn't seem on the surface to be very good with math.
But then, most republicans aren't that good with math.
Thats why the Democrats exist. So we can correct their mistakes.
That doesn't mean the war was a bad idea though just because the messenger flunked math.:)

Again, Peace

[Spindulik]

Bill Gates can esily afford a chunk of that.

[amphoteric88]

removed

[Z]

patriots are $1,000,000 each. they have used about 600 or so?

[zhelynd]

besides the above missels, i heard that they already spent half a billion to compensate death soldreds and their families, i wonder if these are also fixed expenses even not for war, i mean, people also die in military exercises too right?

[Skillian]

Considering the amount of casualties from this war, their families must have received a hell of a lot of compensation for the bill to total $500, 000, 000.

[zhelynd]

I remembered the exact figure was 0.46 billion... :)

anyways, the $344 billion is the cost only for this war, that's on top of the annual defence budget.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by zhelynd@5 April 2003 - 22:57
besides the above missels, i heard that they already spent half a billion to compensate death soldreds and their families, i wonder if these are also fixed expenses even not for war, i mean, people also die in military exercises too right?
I'll repeat, we have to use the missiles whether we go to war or not.
The electronics and the explosive chemicals do not have an extremely long shelf life. They degrade for a variety of reasons, mostly to do with weather and other atmospheric conditions.
If you were ever in the armed forces, you would know that training missions with live fire are the norm.
We also have an extensive build up of weaponry that has been stockpiled from the cold war era.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, we reduced our forces somewhat and our war games were less frequent.
What we use in this war is what we already had anyway.
The fuel required for these operations, (over and above what we would have used anyway), is negligeable.
At last mention in the news, Bush was requesting an additional 75bil for this campaign.
That is how much he figures this war and the Iraqi recovery effort will cost, over and above what we would have spent on our military budget anyway.
75bil for this country's government is really not alot.
And please again, take note that the majority of that 75bil is to help in the Iraqi recovery effort.

As to your question about military men dying in training missions...
The answer is, unfortunately, yes.
In fact, when you get down to it, we tend to kill more of our own in routine training missions and replenishment exercises, due to negligence or lack of attention to details, than we have lost in this war so far.
But isn't that the way it goes?
Any auto insurance agent will tell you, most auto accidents happen within two blocks of your driveway.

Peace

[zhelynd]

Missels are kept in fridges and under cold temperatures. And they do have a fairly long lifespan. All missles, i guess for average, can last at least a year.
what the war does is it used up the missels from reserve, so the arm factories have to produce additional missels to fill up the reserve. my conclusion is that war does consume additional missels, alot more.

Anunal military cost and the cost of this war are 2 different figures. Whatever the war costs is considered a variable cost, which is the 74.7 billion. It's on top of the fixed cost for missel deteriation, solderd died in exercise and other non-war military expenses.

Is 75b really not alot to the American government, even during a slow economy such as the one right now? I doubt that.

[Z]

Originally posted by zhelynd@5 April 2003 - 23:36
Missels are kept in fridges and under cold temperatures. And they do have a fairly long lifespan. All missles, i guess for average, can last at least a year.
what the war does is it used up the missels from reserve, so the arm factories have to produce additional missels to fill up the reserve. my conclusion is that war does consume additional missels, alot more.

Anunal military cost and the cost of this war are 2 different figures. Whatever the war costs is considered a variable cost, which is the 74.7 billion. It's on top of the fixed cost for missel deteriation, solderd died in exercise and other non-war military expenses.

Is 75b really not alot to the American government, even during a slow economy such as the one right now? I doubt that.
well does ne1 know how big the US economy is? greenspan? huge...

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by zhelynd@5 April 2003 - 23:36
Missels are kept in fridges and under cold temperatures. And they do have a fairly long lifespan. All missles, i guess for average, can last at least a year.


At least a year? :)
Actually, a bit more than that.
As for refridgeration, our larger missiles, ie nuclear intercontinental missiles, (Trident, Polaris, etc), are kept in climate controlled rooms.
Partly because the cost of building more is prohibitive but also because we can't run training excersizes with nukes.
In other words, we have a fluid supply of weapons in most areas except our nuclear arsenal which is fairly static.


what the war does is it used up the missels from reserve, so the arm factories have to produce additional missels to fill up the reserve. my conclusion is that war does consume additional missels, alot more.


You've obviously never lived life on a budget yet.
Ask your parents what reserve funds means?
Thats what reserve missiles means too, basically.
Rebuilding our arsenal is standard.
And because of the experience these fine young men are getting right now, we won't need to do live fire excersizes for a couple of years.


Anunal military cost and the cost of this war are 2 different figures. Whatever the war costs is considered a variable cost, which is the 74.7 billion. It's on top of the fixed cost for missel deteriation, solderd died in exercise and other non-war military expenses.

Is 75b really not alot to the American government, even during a slow economy such as the one right now? I doubt that

75bil is alot. However,
the biggest expense we saw was for homeland security.
That is effecting this country on many levels, most of which are not reflected in the federal budget because the federal government doesn't foot most of the bill. Private companies cover that cost in upscaled security measures.
Also, revenues are down in some areas like air travel because of American concerns over terrorists. There are other expenses of 9/11 that go a bit deeper.
As a counter balance, travel by other means has increased and travel within the U.S. has replaced alot of travel abroad.
Also, people are making a bigger effort to avoid buying foreign made products due to an increased patriotism.
I personally consider it fortunate that we had a considerable budget surplus from the efforts of Daddy Bush and Clinton to reduce spending.
That means that the events of 9/11 didn't throw us into as much of a crunch as it could have.
And it gives me the confidence that we have the means to dig out of this one.

The war is a very small cost in this country when weighed against the cost of not going to war.

As for our budget for this year, check out this page: http://www.cbo.gov/
We have a 2 Trillion dollar budget per year.

Yes, 75 Billion, (which is 3.75% of the budget), is alot.
We'll survive though.
You don't need to worry about us.

Peace

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by zhelynd@2 April 2003 - 22:03
"Why does the federal government want to spend $344 billion on the Pentagon,
when the federal government currently spends only $42 billion on education, $26
billion on affordable housing, $6 billion on Head Start, and only $1 billion on school
construction? Does it appear that our national priorities are mixed up or what?"

The federal government spends that much on education, head start and housing?
Damn. Thats cool. :)

Those are state run programs. Its nice to know the federal government helps out.

Thanks for the info dude. :)