's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Now it's up to 90 Billion dollars(12 posts)

Now it's up to 90 Billion dollarsMR_GRUMPY
Sep 8, 2003 11:51 AM
For Iraq..... Let's see... To pay for this, george has decided to have a "special assesment" to every man, woman, and child in the USA.
If you are not married, you will get a bill for $360, not to be paid later than 30 days after receipt. If you're married, it goes up to $720. If you have two kids, you owe $1440................Please pay before October 1st.......
You know nothing of the tax code...TJeanloz
Sep 8, 2003 11:57 AM
The way it would work is this:

If you are single and working, you will be assessed $10,000

If you are married, but your spouse doesn't work, you will be assessed $9,000

There will be a $4,999 deduction for each child, with no credit allowed.

A two child family will thus pay $2.

But I don't think the current system is unfair, or anything...
I prefer to think of it as $90,000,000,000.00Spoiler
Sep 8, 2003 11:59 AM
It gives you a chance to think about it while you're counting all the zeros.
I prefer to think of it as $90,000,000,000.00Jack9
Sep 8, 2003 3:55 PM
The invasion of Iraq is a disaster. It's going to cost a lot more than $90 billion by the time we get out. And when we do get out, it's going to be a lot uglier than our exit from Vietnam.
"A lot uglier than our exit from Vietnam"TJeanloz
Sep 8, 2003 4:39 PM
People who say things like that really bother me. How is this going to be "a lot uglier" than the exit from what was truely a disasterous war from start to finish?

58,168 Americans died in Vietnam. At our current casualty rate of, what, 2 soldiers per day, that's almost 80 years before we reach the same level.

So your hypothesis is either:
(a) Attacks will become far more numerous and far more deadly


(b) We will have soldiers in Iraq, and they will continue to be the target of terrorism, for 80 more years.

I'm going to say that this will not be as bad as Vietnam.
Don't know what the poster was getting at, but. . .czardonic
Sep 8, 2003 5:48 PM
. . .

a) As resistance becomes organized it is becoming more deadly (e.g. the UN and Mosque car bombs of recent weeks as opposed to the isolated grenade attacks that preceded.)

b) We could conceivably be in Iraq for a very long time, especially if this is to be our ourpost in the region. There are still people protesting our presence in Okinawa -- thankfully, by peaceful means. But Iraq is not Japan.

c) There are other measures of the ugliness of a war than American casualties. Fortunately, chances of casualties on either side of this war are unlikely to reach Vietnam levels.
The casualties are relativly minor(unless you know one of them)MR_GRUMPY
Sep 8, 2003 7:35 PM
It's the cost to this country that keeps going up and up. We've already spent 80-100 billion dollars to fight this war. Now we have to come up with another 90 billion. There has to be another way to pay for this. Like I have said before, Why don't we just "loan" them the money. They can pay us back in oil when they get their pipelines fixed.
Probably too simple of a solution, but there has to be one. George talks about how great the economy is going. That's a good one. Yeah, there are lots of jobs flippin' burgers.
This massive debt, isn't going to help things.
Who are we going to invade when we get hit again ?
An 80-year occupation isn't out of the question.OldEdScott
Sep 9, 2003 10:07 AM
John McLaughlin predicted, what, a 50 year occupation last week? There's precedent for long occupations (Europe, Japan) even in 'friendly' former enemies. The mind reels at what may be required in the intractable Middle East.

Attacks becoming more numerous and far more deadly -- that's not out of the question either. In fact, I think it's more likely than not. If indeed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you can bet these jokers have some of them. Even if not, they're going to have access to weapons of pretty serious destruction. They will be armed at least as well as Hamas.
Let's define "occupation"TJeanloz
Sep 9, 2003 10:26 AM
Do we currently "occupy" Japan and Germany? I wouldn't say so. "Occupation" ends when a popularly-supported government takes the reins from the American military. The post WWII "occupations" lasted less than 10 years.
Whatever. It's still more likely thanOldEdScott
Sep 9, 2003 10:34 AM
not that we'll either abandon Iraq altogether or occupy it (and I mean militarily against hostiles) for half a century.

Either possibility is much more likely than the pre-war Bush fantasy of a happy indigenous government taking over, establishing American-style democracy, letting us establish military bases there among the grateful people, and paying us oil dividends for centuries.
No way, unless you are talking about moneyMR_GRUMPY
Sep 9, 2003 6:07 AM
If this thing lasts three years, I think that we will have about 400-500 KIA's and a total cost of about $1,000,000,000,000. Yup...... over a Trillion bucks.
Iraq oil revenuegf99
Sep 9, 2003 4:26 AM
This article sheds some light on the "why can't we pay for it with the oil" discussion in several of these threads.

"The reality is there won't be any surplus Iraqi oil income for at least three to five years under a best-case scenario."