War with Iraq will cost upwards of $2 TRILLION? How will Bush pay for it?

[WSLer]

Considering that he and the Republican controlled Congress are all gugn-ho on making the taz cut permanent and possibly initiating even more tax cuts, where the H*** is the money going to come from? I seriously doubt that our allies are going to be willing to pony up even a fraction of the $2 trillion. So where is the money going to come from?

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

Oil!!!

[Azael]

Think of it as that $2 trillion dollars we needed just to jumpstart our flagging military industry. Bush knows his economics.

[Johnny_L.A]

Bush is going to pay for it? Well, I’m still not in favour of going to war; but as long as Bush is paying for it and not the taxpayers…

[RobertTB]

Obligatory: Can we get a cite for the 2 trillion figure? (Preferrably not from www.nowariniraqandgeewhizihatebush.org)

[SandyHook]

Yeah, cite!!!

Most of the costs (financial) associated with the - possible - coming war are pretty much what are called, “sunk costs.” That is, we will incur them whether or not we engage Iraq. The marginal costs, those incurred as a direct result of the war, will be much less.

[barton]

*Originally posted by RobertTB *
**Obligatory: Can we get a cite for the 2 trillion figure? (Preferrably not from www.nowariniraqandgeewhizihatebush.org) **

Obviously, such a cite would be biased. Therefore I stopped by America’s most neutral and fair news source, www.yeswariniraqandgeewhizilovebush.org. Everything any red-blooded American needs to know is right there.

I believe the amount is actually 1.9 trillion. From the AP:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021206/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_cost_1

[Kimstu]

The Christian Science Monitor (9/02) sez:

Despite the uncertainties, hardly any economist thinks the cost of the conflict will be too onerous for the economy. The Gulf War cost about $80 billion, or about 1 percent of US gross domestic product. Early estimates put a second Iraq war between $100 billion and $200 billion – again about 1 to 2 percent of GDP. “We can’t say the cost will be negligible. But we have plenty of unused capacity in the economy, so we’ll get no excess demand-driven inflation,” says Don Straszheim of Straszheim Global Partners in Santa Monica, Calif.

But estimating the cost of the war is also slippery for economists. Robert Brusca of the New York consulting firm Ecobest thinks there are too many intangibles, such as what kind of havoc President Hussein will wreak in the region. He wonders if Hussein will try to destroy oil wells, or shoot dirty bombs at Israel. With so many uncertainties, he says, “I think the impact on the economy is going to be bad. This war will not be a cookie- cutter win like the last one.”

$2 trillion? That would be about 20% of GDP—ouchies. 1%–2% of GDP is plenty expensive as it is, IMHO. [Note added in preview: I see that both these figures are estimated for the total cost of a 10-year war. Ten years? cripes.]

[threemae]

Seeing how this amount would approach roughly one fifth of the annual United States GNP, I must report that I am highly doubtful of this figure.

'Mkay?

[threemae]

Damn!

Simulpost, and Kimstu’s better supported too!

[In_Conceivable]

Did I miss it? Did the war start?

How is it possible to estimate the cost of a war that hasn’t started and might not? They are just guessing.

[Kimstu]

Looking at barton’s cite, the high-end estimate seems to depend mostly on possible high occupation/peacekeeping costs ($500 billion) and the effects of possible “prolonged disruption of world oil markets” ($778 billion). Simply bombing the crap out of the targets (aka “direct military spending”) is relatively thrifty at $50–140 billion. I still think we could fight terrorism a lot more cost-effectively in other ways.

[Drastic]

I figure that massive jump-start the economy got last year when I got that check for $300 will pretty much cover it.

[elucidator]

Simpletons! He’s going to pay for the war with tax cuts!

[tcdaniel]

Maybe that figure is based on the War on Terrorism including the nation of Al Queda, there everywhere you want to be.

[Triskadecamus]

Dammit, elucidator, you beat me to it!

[Blackeyes]

I was going to say those even before elucidator did, but I’m going to post it anyways:
The war will pay for itself, just like tax cuts.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I don’t understand where all these high costs come from? Like SnadyHook mentioned it would seem most of the costs are alerady out there. We already own the aircraft carriers, tanks, soldiers and so on. It would seem the costs would mostly be consumables…bombs and missiles and bullets mainly. Hell…even food costs should remain largely the same (we feed our soldiers anyway). Add to that added fuel costs for heightened activity but I still don’t see the billions and billions they say it will cost. Trillions? Way beyond my understanding.

[DrDeth]

Don’t be silly, Bush will pay for the War with increased tax cuts to the very wealthy, of course.

[Kimstu]

WaM: We already own the aircraft carriers, tanks, soldiers and so on.

Yeah, but it’s more expensive to maintain, support and replace them at war over in the Middle East than it is to keep them at home during peacetime. (Aren’t there “active duty” pay bonuses too?)

It would seem the costs would mostly be consumables…bombs and missiles and bullets mainly.

See my above post: the “direct military spending” costs, including those “consumables”, is estimated at about $50–140 billion. The potential big-ticket items are peacekeeping costs (as high as $500 billion?) and “disruption of world oil markets” (as high as $778 billion?).