Iraq War to Cost America 3 TRILLION Dollars: Nobel Prize-Winning Economist

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by ByLoSellHi, Mar 4, 2008.

  1. The mistake made by the current administration in launching war against Iraq, rather than focusing on Afghanistan and the Pakistan-Afghan border, will be recorded as on the biggest blunders, if not the biggest blunder, in the history of the United States.

    It may mark a turning point in the hegemony of the United States.

    May Republicans, Democrats and Independents, all agree on this fundamental point; for if we can recover from this, let us all pledge, together, to never again allow our government to fail us in such epic fashion.


    On Thursday, the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, conducted a public examination of the costs of the war. The witnesses included the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (who believes the overall costs of the war — not just the cost to taxpayers — will reach $3 trillion), and Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

    Both men talked about large opportunities lost because of the money poured into the war. “For a fraction of the cost of this war,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.”
  2. Didn't Warren Buffett complain he and his buddy Bill Gates are not paying enough taxes? Maybe they can fund our massive budget deficit with their bank accounts?
  3. Bowgett


    Why do people worry about credit losses which are just about $600bn?
  4. Retired


  5. Retired


  6. 'While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the world
    behind Saudi Arabia, EIA (US Energy Information Administration) estimates that
    up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored'

    3 TRILLION Dollars — a drop in the bucket
  7. right on!
    Is Unethical, BUT we are running out of oil.
    this a good "investment", that"s why Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy and everybody in washington vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

    PD: There is a great deal of disagreement on the issue of future oil supply; one reason is that there is confusion among the terms used, such as active and inactive reserves, known and unknown resources, etc. Like the mining term ore, oil reserves are by definition economic or profitable. Oil resources, conversely, are less tangible. Two useful oil business terms are:

    A- Reserves--engineers' (conservative) opinions of how much oil is known to be producible, within a known time, with known techniques, at known costs, and in known fields. Conservative bankers will loan money on reserves.

    B- Resources--geologists' (optimistic) opinions of all undiscovered oil theoretically present in an area. Conservative bankers will NOT loan money on resources.
  8. "There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” - Paul Wolfowitz, March 27, 2003

    We're still waiting on those oil revenues to kick in and start paying us back for this disaster. I'm sure we are at the top of the Iraqi's list for who gets to use that money first.
  9. Retired


    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was recently in Iraq shaking hands with Iraqi President.

    Since the start of the Iraq War, have you seen any oil price drop?
  10. Why would you thumb your nose at them rather than the guy who got the US into this bogus war, refuses to get out, and then cuts taxes while incurring such heavy costs of funding the war, thereby raping the national treasury? (And that's not even mentioning his apparent disregard for the human cost on all sides, judging by his conduct.) Perhaps some more supply-side, trickle-down style tax cuts for Halliburton, which is now headquartered in Dubai, would do the trick and get things moving again, eh?
    #10     Mar 4, 2008