House GOP Budget to cut $6.2 Trillion Over Ten Years

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It's part of it - not all of it.

And a big part it is....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/26/afghanistan-iraq-usa-cost-idUSN2611591520100126

Q+A-Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan tops $1 trillion

WASHINGTON | Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:56pm EST

Jan 26 (Reuters) - The cost to U.S. taxpayers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 has topped $1 trillion, and President Barack Obama is expected to request another $33 billion to fund more U.S. troops this year.

About two-thirds of the money has been spent on the conflict in Iraq since 2003. This year is the first in which more funds are being spent in Afghanistan than Iraq, as the pace of U.S. military operations slows in Iraq and quickens in Afghanistan.

HOW MUCH HAS BEEN SPENT ALREADY?

Congress has approved $1.075 trillion dollars for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and "war-related activities" since 2001, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It included the costs in its budget outlook Tuesday.

The war expense topped $1 trillion in December 2009, when U.S. lawmakers approved the fiscal 2010 defense spending bill that included about $130 billion to be spent on the two conflicts through Sept. 30, 2010.

The $1.075 trillion tally includes $51 billion for diplomatic activities and aid to Iraq, Afghanistan and various other countries that are assisting the United States in fighting terrorism, CBO said.

HOW MUCH WENT FOR IRAQ AND HOW MUCH FOR AFGHANISTAN?

The lion's share of the spending -- $708 billion -- has been allocated to the war in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion there in 2003, according to CBO. Former President George Bush launched the Iraq war in a search for weapons of mass destruction, which never were found.

CBO said $345 billion has gone to Afghanistan, where the United States invaded to fight al Qaeda and topple the Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. About $22 billion went for war-related activities in other countries, it said.

The current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, is the first year that more money has been allocated to Afghanistan ($72.3 billion) than Iraq ($64.5 billion), according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan budget research group that has a running tally of the wars' costs on its Website.

The group included some U.S. homeland security spending in those 2010 cost tallies. It examines congressional appropriations, while CBO has access to additional sources, including Pentagon spending reports.

HOW MUCH MORE WILL THESE OPERATIONS COST?

Obama announced in December he was adding 30,000 more U.S. troops to the Afghan war effort to join the 68,000 already fighting a resurgent Taliban. Defense officials say he will shortly ask Congress for $33 billion to pay for the cost of the troop surge in fiscal 2010.

Future expenses are a question mark, partly because troop levels are uncertain. Obama says he wants to start withdrawing forces from Afghanistan in mid-2011, but that will depend, in part, on conditions on the ground. No departure deadline has been set.

Estimates of the cost per troop per year in Afghanistan vary from $500,000 to $1 million depending on whether expenditures on troop housing and equipment are included along with pay, food and fuel. Medical costs for the injured and veterans' compensation balloon as time goes on.

In Iraq, the U.S. force is supposed to fall to 50,000 by the end of August, from some 115,000 last month. The 50,000 can remain until the end of 2011, under an agreement with Baghdad.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Why_Me

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You're probably right, but let's worry about tomorrow's retirees tomorrow.

This country is going bankrupt TODAY paying for TODAY's retirees' healthcare - retirees who actually HAVE the money to pay for it.

But the Ryan proposal does nothing to address TODAY and worries only about tomorrow. Remember, Ryan's proposal does not change medicare benefits for today's retirees. It doesn't even change them for those that are now in line to enter the system over the next decade. Nothing changes for the next 10 years. Only then would the inflow of beneficiaries stop and the cost of the system would be curbed. In a decade but not TODAY. So, aside from the savings to Uncle Sam - if these are ever realized and that's a big IF - of the PPACA, nothing is saved for at least another decade. Remember those $500 billion dollars in cuts to the Medicare system imbedded in the PPACA that the GOP complained so loudly about prior to the 2010 election? Remember how PPACA would pull the plug on grandma? Ryan's plan does not reverse any of those "cuts". All of a sudden, those cuts aren't enough. Now we're really talking about pulling those plugs.

And then there's the little nugget of people paying into a system that we then know won't be around. Why would I want to fund a retirement benefit that I know is being discontinued? It's like my employer making me contribute to my 401K while at the same time telling me that 401Ks will be seized prior to my retirement.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

FDR is my hero! Thank-you Bob Dole! Life is good!

[mawilson 2,133]

But the Ryan proposal does nothing to address TODAY and worries only about tomorrow.

In my post, today = 10-20 years from now, tomorrow = 30-40 years from now.

[mawilson 2,133]

Remember those $500 billion dollars in cuts to the Medicare system imbedded in the PPACA that the GOP complained so loudly about prior to the 2010 election? Remember how PPACA would pull the plug on grandma? Ryan's plan does not reverse any of those "cuts". All of a sudden, those cuts aren't enough. Now we're really talking about pulling those plugs.

I remember. The GOP is full of ######, of course (who knew!) but doing something is better than doing nothing and running $1+ trillion deficits for the next 10 years.

[웃 910]

And a big part it is....

The cost to U.S. taxpayers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 has topped $1 trillion, and President Barack Obama is expected to request another $33 billion to fund more U.S. troops this year.

You have to pick 1 side or the other. Not both!

We are either spending too much blood and treasure in Iraq/Afghanistan or we are amazingly savvy investors and making billions and trillions in oil profits from being over there. Which one is it?

[Dan J 277]

[/size][/size][/font][/font]

You have to pick 1 side or the other. Not both!

We are either spending too much blood and treasure in Iraq/Afghanistan or we are amazingly savvy investors and making billions and trillions in oil profits from being over there. Which one is it?

If we are making money from oil, its not the government thats getting it.

[웃 910]

If we are making money from oil, its not the government thats getting it.

[mawilson 2,133]

And a big part it is....

Not as big as you think.

From your post:

The cost to U.S. taxpayers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 has topped $1 trillion.

$1 trillion since 2001.

You know what our budget deficit was in 2009 alone? $1.89 trillion.

In 2010? $1.652 trillion. Projected for 2011? $1.947 trillion.

It's all here.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[/size][/size][/font][/font]

You have to pick 1 side or the other. Not both!

We are either spending too much blood and treasure in Iraq/Afghanistan or we are amazingly savvy investors and making billions and trillions in oil profits from being over there. Which one is it?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/296182-they-want-to-build-a-pipeline-through-a-war-zone/ <--- That's why were there.

[웃 910]

http://www.visajourn...ugh-a-war-zone/ <--- That's why were there.

So that Turkmenistan can supply Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India with natural gas?

The pipeline, which starts from the gas-rich Turkmenistan and ends at India's northwestern border town of Fazilka via Afghanistan's southern city of Kandhar and Pakistan's central city of Multan, is expected to supply 3.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to the three energy-hungry South Asian countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India upon its completion in 2014.

Pakistan will get 42 percent of the supply quota while India's quota is also standing at 42 percent with the remaining 16 percent to be balanced by Afghanistan.

TAPI could be Afghanistan's largest development project. Transit revenue could amount to $300 million per year.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So that Turkmenistan can supply Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India with natural gas?

The pipeline, which starts from the gas-rich Turkmenistan and ends at India's northwestern border town of Fazilka via Afghanistan's southern city of Kandhar and Pakistan's central city of Multan, is expected to supply 3.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to the three energy-hungry South Asian countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India upon its completion in 2014.

Pakistan will get 42 percent of the supply quota while India's quota is also standing at 42 percent with the remaining 16 percent to be balanced by Afghanistan.

TAPI could be Afghanistan's largest development project. Transit revenue could amount to $300 million per year.

Europe is already tapping into gas from Iraq via Turkey. It's called the "Nabucco Line" and what it does is help cut Europe's dependency for Russian gas. Russia has cut the taps off twice now and Belarus once in this past decade.

[웃 910]

Europe is already tapping into gas from Iraq via Turkey. It's called the "Nabucco Line" and what it does is help cut Europe's dependency for Russian gas. Russia has cut the taps off twice now and Belarus once in this past decade.

So Europe is stealing gas from Iraq and profiting from going to war there?

Or are they buying it?

You know we could have made Iraq pay for their own war. You do know that they profit from their own oil and we didn't charge them a dime of the $1 trillion we have spent over there right?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Europe is already tapping into gas from Iraq via Turkey. It's called the "Nabucco Line" and what it does is help cut Europe's dependency for Russian gas. Russia has cut the taps off twice now and Belarus once in this past decade.

Good. Europe should be held hostage to the whims of their former colonies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I remember. The GOP is full of ######, of course (who knew!) but doing something is better than doing nothing and running $1+ trillion deficits for the next 10 years.

Again, nothing in the proposal changes the cost trajectory for medicare over the next 10 years. Absolutely nothing. After that, it's the equivalent of a giant tax increase. As per the CBO's evaluation of Ryan's medicare proposal: "Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system." ... "...but the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program" ... "According to the CBO, a typical 65-year-old with a private health-insurance plan covering standard Medicare benefits could be liable for 61% of his or her total health care costs in 2022 under Ryan's plan. By 2030, the figure could be 68%."

So what we're saying is that retirees will bear a much larger cost for their healthcare down the road. We can debate over the wisdom of this approach - it may be the right path or it might be the wrong path - but the fact remains that Americans pay Medicare taxes and will shoulder more cost for their healthcare when they retire. That's a giant tax increase in disguise. You may as well be honest about it and raise Medicare taxes which would also solve the problem for some time to come and it would ensure that seniors have guaranteed coverage. Instead, we're raising the cost of the system for everyone and probably end up with a huge chunk of uninsured elders which will then also line up at the ER's at taxpayer expense. What do we then actually gain? Yes, a number of retirees will kick the bucket sooner and ease the burden on Social Security. Awesome!

Edited April 6, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog