Iraq now costs $12 billion a month

Studies: Iraq costs US $12B per month

For those who support the continued occupation of Iraq, is there no upper limit to what you would spend to maintain troops in Iraq? At some point – $15 billion, $20 billion per month – even the most ardent hawk has to say enough is enough. Are the principles of conservatism suspended when it comes to spending in Iraq?

Or is there truly no limit to what we must sacrifice here in America, be it health care or education or aging infrastructure, to maintain the illusion that we are democratizing a country of people who would not only slaughter each other if we didn’t stand between them, they would also kill us as soon as look at us?

When is enough, enough?

How much money do the Bushes have? Or W’s yes men that allowed us to get into this situation? I’m all for making them give up their wealth in paying back the debt and housing them on welfare as payment for all of the lives lost on this fool’s errand. Of course that won’t happen and the US will be paying this off for another generation or so. Well, WE’LL be paying it off…I’m betting Bush will go to his grave with a fat wallet and his children unmaimed.

Boilerplate responses…

Faux Conservative:

We don’t sacrifice anything because none of this money actually exists. It’s just a bunch of 1s and 0s being transferred between centralized banking computers. We could spend more 1s and 0s on whatever your pet topic is but frankly no one else cares. Stop looking at public opinion polls, they’re just made up by Amy Goodman.

Depressingly True Imperial Critique:

Our society has elite decision makers. The decision makers say more war and hegemony, less domestic fluff. They have decided – correctly – that the the status quo will result in no personal career damage. Quite the opposite.

Faux Democratic Partisan:

Of course there’s a limit! And the American people have finally reached it! Once <insert Democratic Presidential candidate> is in the White House and we elect a bluer Congress you’re gonna see a whole lot of things change!

America is the Last, Best Hope for the Earth:

Listen here, buddy. You have things too good over there. Look at Iraq. Look what we’re doing. We’re bringing these people freedom and hope for a better future after being subjugated by Saddam Hussein for twenty years. We have a moral obligation to help these poor souls. Twenty billion in Iraq is much better spent than twenty billion making more Starbucks coffee houses or helping some artsy fartsy types fingerpaint and call it a masterpiece. PURPLE FINGERS!

Bush fired the accountant who said the war would cost 200 mill. Now it is estimated to 3 trillion dollars. Who would have bought into this debacle if they told the truth.

You’ll start hearing a lot about the costs and profligacy of government expenditure, if and only if the Democrats come into power.

What do 180.000 contractors cost? Why don’t Hillary and Obama discuss what happens to them. if they win? We know McCain only wants them around for a century.

One thing you can be sure of: Republicans have forever lost the conservative high ground on spending. Never again will anyone pay any attention to them when they whine, “It’s too expensive, we can’t afford that!” when Democrats legislate universal health care, or expand government funding of education. The only difference between Democrats and Dine ‘n’ Dash Republicans on spending is Democrats will raise taxes to pay for their spending, while Republicans can be counted on to leave the check on the table for their grandkids to pay.

Classic link someone provided when I asked about the cost of the was a while ago: Iraq war will cost $1.7 billion.

Please stop throwing that comment around out of context.

Well, I don’t think that is true unless of course now “conservative” equals “neocon”, which it never has and never will. By very definition, “conservatives” are, well, conservatives. Squares. Father figures that are supposed to be tight with money, only giving Mommy (Democrats) enough money to feel useful.
I agree that the Republican Party by and large has been hijacked by politicians that bow and scrape to the corporate greed of a false Utopia, but those guys including the current admin are decidedly NOT Conservatives.
It’s like when the Pubs took Congress in the 1990’s with Clinton and “liberal” somehow became a dirty word, so now is the word “Conservative” dirty and linked to a bunch of “Republicans” that neither represent theie true Party ideals nor that of true Conservatives.

Well, let’s compare: $12billion/month in Iraq, which comes to $144 Billion/year. It sounds like a lot (and it is-to anyone except a government) but it isn’t even the interest on our national debt. According to the Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, this year we’ll spend just under 3 trillion dollars on health care. So all in all, I have to say, cost wise, I’d rather have a war in Iraq than UHC. YMMV

Sure they can, and they will, Hugh Betcha! “Damn shame the liberals forced this war on us, and we spent 2.5 godzillabucks, but them’s the breaks.”

The fact that the interest on our national debt is larger is not a reason to say the Iraq war is cheap. It is a reason to say our national debt is far too excessive. And if it were spent on health care, that money largely stays at home, helping the economy, no?

Do you think the money we spend on Iraq is dumped into a furnace or something?

Reminds me, I gotta check that KBR stock.

Do conservatives support the continued occupation in Iraq or not?

So the bar on what is “too expensive” lies somewhere between $144 billion and $3 trillion a year. Care to narrow that down a little? Per the OP, when does the cost of the war in Iraq become “too expensive”?

Pretty close. The Iraqi so called “reconstruction” effort is notoriously corrupt and wasteful. If building uninhabitable buildings isn’t throwing away the money, what is ?

Yes, a lot of it goes to buy fuel to transport troops and equipment halfway around the planet and in constant patrols. That money is essentially burned. Although it’s a good point that war also creates patients who require constant health care when they return and that money will be spent domestically. But it also means more hospital beds are devoted to war injuries and fewer are left for you and me.

Starting a war to stimulate the economy only works in the short term but it’s incredibly inefficient. The long term damage from spending so many dollars overseas probably overshadows your stock gains, too.

Ya might wanna dump it. From an AP story in this morning’s Frostbite Falls Pultroon and Cage-Liner:

Just wanna point out one other thing mentioned in the item on Iraqi war costs: they’re greater than the inflation-adjusted cost of the war in Vietnam.

The interest on the national debt is a huge problem that America has financially, amounting to over $400 billion annually. If Bush had sane economic policies through his administration, we would be saving $100 to $150 billion every year just on interest alone, and every hundred billion counts.

The 3 trillion figure on health care that you mention isn’t how much the government spends on health care. It is probably how much is spent, total, for health care by Americans. Which comes down to $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in America every year. Which just proves how screwed up the current health care system is, and the need for changes.

Well, if $144 billion/year is pocket change, I don’t wanna hear anymore lip from the anti-moon base folks.