The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.Ooh! a Congressional Committee report! Before you start with the details, let me go get my blank stare and a pillow! I wouldn't want to miss anything!
That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs the White House requested so far from Congress, the Democratic-led Joint Economic Committee said.
Oxymoron alert!
The committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan.
Did they subtract out the costs of maintaining a trained army sitting around on their butts doing nothing? Did they subtract out the equipment that should have been replaced during Clinton years but wasn't? Did they subtract out the cost of another 9/11 or nuked city or two or ten?
The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.
2017? Ooooo-kaaaaaay . . . .
The higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, lost productivity, higher oil prices and the cost of health care for veterans, the committee said.
Lost productivity? I'd say it could be argued that war spurs productivity on some fronts as much as it takes it away on others. Higher oil prices would be here one way or the other due to enormous demand. And doesn't health care count as part of the economy? The dollars have to come from somewhere. It is higher for veterans because of the injuries they receive, but a lot of it is there already.
The committee calculated the average cost of both wars for a family of four would be $20,900 from 2002 to 2008. The cost for a family of four would go up to $46,400 from 2002 to 2017, the committee said.
The average family of four doesn't pay a lot of taxes. It is the rich who pay for the war, along with 90% of the other stuff that this country buys. And don't forget the foreign investors, who have a stake in the economy.
The estimate was released as Democrats launch a new effort to force a withdrawal from the widely unpopular conflict. Senate Republicans dismissed the report as a political document, arguing that Democrats have "hyped" the war's impact on oil prices.
Tell that to the ignorant.
"For every dollar we spend directly in Iraq, we're going to pay another dollar for the indirect, but immediate, costs of the war," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said. "We of the baby boom generation and our children and grandchildren will be paying for this war for a very long time to come."
This war is as big as it is because of your waffling, hedging, and defeatism, Senator. And all who surround you.
"We cannot afford this war -- $12 billion dollars a month?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said. "We just can't. We can't continue."
Cutting into your pork is it?
Schumer said finances will become a significant factor in the ongoing debate regarding the course of the conflicts.
"The cost of the war is becoming the $800 billion gorilla in the room when it comes to opposition in the war," he said. "It is becoming the first thing that people mention after the loss of life when they're opposed to this war."
"And the people who mention it, many of them, are not people who were against the war in the past," Schumer added.
Details and definitions of "many", please? Or are you still having a tough time passing your stupid riders to the spending bills?
Office of Budget and Management Director Jim Nussle dismissed the report, saying "the Congressional leadership is attempting to manipulate economic data for public relations purposes."
No! Say it isn't so!
"There are several ... distortions within the report, such as attempting to tie war costs to overall business investment and the price of oil."
Republicans, who said they were not included in the preparation of the report, also said the country has little choice but continue to bear the costs of the war.
Or to bear the costs of not going to war . . . .
"We have been protected from attack here at home," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky said. "There's progress that is obviously being made in Iraq."
"We need to finish the job, and finish the job is to leave Iraq in a condition that it can defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror," he said.
Besides, having bases there will make Pakistan less "necessary" and put a damper on the region's antics and "aspirations". Does that count for anything?
"What's their alternative?" Don Stewart, a McConnell spokesman, asked of the Democrats. "Should we not fund veterans? Should we not send MRAPs [armored personal carriers] to Iraq? Not fund the GI Bill?
[Hint: Don't waste much time on this, it's a rhetorical question.]
"And how much will oil cost if the progress in Iraq is reversed and al Qaeda shuts down the oil deliveries? What will that do to the markets?" Stewart asked.
Take your time, Donks. Don't wanna burn out that brain cell!
Stewart called the report "a Democrat report, prepared by the head of the Democrat campaign committee" -- a reference to Schumer, the head of the party's effort to add Senate seats in 2008.
Donks would be insulted at being part of the target audience if they had any brains, but by definition that makes them a Trunk.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused the Democrats of releasing the report for partisan reasons and to "muddy the waters" after a series of positive reports from Iraq -- including a reduction in violence, increased economic capacity of the country, and signs of continued political reconciliation "from the bottom up."
Louder and more often along with references to supporing facts and details available on the whitehouse.gov website, please. It's called P.R., propaganda, advertising, etc., but whatever it's called it actually helps your cause.
"It's positive and we hope it is a trend that will take hold," Perino said.
Just like I hope the graphic I found will take hold in the RB pic archives! :-)