|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sojourner1
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Location: Where meggi swim and 2 wheeled tractors go sput put chug alugg pug pug
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: U.S. led Wars Costing $15B Per Month |
 |
|
I find this almost unbelievable. At this rate, the treasury is sure to go bust any time. What might happen when America maxes out on debt? That is when the creditors (China, India, and Japan) say, "no more, you're in over your heads as it is."
That's one big tab to be running up and $15,000,000,000 per month doesn't include all the other stuff. I don't see how this is sustainable or tolerated as it's irresponsible fiscal management and just plain suicidal.
How long can this go on?
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,159011,00.html?ESRC=army.nl
And that's not all.
President Bush signed a bill to spend a whopping $550B in 2008 on the wars. A staggering $45B per month military operating budget! Unfreakin believable. Why don't we scale down our global conquest and re-invest some of this money at home? It could grow and fuel our economy through sponsoring new companies, R&D, upgrading infrastructure, fixing and improving public schools, paying college tuitions for students who maintain good grades, and ensuring each citizen is productive as much as feasible through ensuring adequate and appropriate employment to each citizen. It really could be great... If only we had a leader who did the right things in our real interests...
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158939,00.html?ESRC=army.nl |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: Debt |
|
|
I'd say it will continue until November 2008, when the Democrats are tipped to oust the Republicans. Meanwhile, the USD will continiue to slide, & continue to depreciate against other currencies. Glad I'm being paid in Korean won, & not US $'s.
I wonder if GWB would be so foolish as to start a war with Iran, or North Korea, & just compound the problem?
Last edited by chris_J2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
junkmail
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Part of the reason for the expense is that the rest of the West (mostly) won't do their part. Sure they will have the oil supplies for the next 50 years or whatever but none of the dirty work.
If it wasn't for the US then many of our allies would be in deep trouble, S Korea and Japan for example.
I'm not from the US myself and have had my doubts about them at times but ask yourself this: "Do you want to live in this world with these enemies without the US and it's military prowess?"
To the US citizens that complain about your own country; do you really want to give up your position? Give up your oil supplies? Stop fighting the people who want to DESTROY you?
I used to be a liberal, since then I have traveled a lot
and now, I'm simply a realist.
On a side note, now you know how it feels to be in the position your in (USA citizens), are your views softening towards say the British and their colonial past? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| none of the democratic candidates for the 2008 election are taking a clear stance against the war in iraq... john kerry didn't, either... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: Debt |
|
|
| Quote: |
On June 15, 2006, Clinton charged that President Bush �rushed to war� and �refused to let the UN inspectors conduct and complete their mission ... We need to be building alliances instead of isolation around the world ... There must be a plan that will begin to bring our troops home.� But she also said, �I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment which I think does not put enough pressure on the Iraqi government, nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain.�[63][64]
Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture.[65] On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."[66] On February 17, 2007, Hillary Clinton announced the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007. [67] This act would compel President Bush to begin relegating troops from Iraq within 90 days of remote passage, or, according to Clinton, Congress would have to dismantle their authorization for the war. The Act would also end the blank check to the Iraqi government and submit them to harsh consequences if boundaries are violated. Lastly, the Act would require the Secretary of Defense to verify the condition, in terms of supplies and in terms of their training, of all Iraqi troops before they are sent. [68]
In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines[69] but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush.
In May 2007, Clinton was one of only 14 senators to vote against a compromise war funding bill that removed previously vetoed withdrawal deadlines but tied funding to progress benchmarks for the Iraqi government. She said, "I fully support our troops [but this measure] fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq." [70]
While calling for "ending the war" in Iraq, Clinton's July 2007 position also advocates keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, because "we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic national interests in this region."[71] She favors deploying U.S. forces to protect the Kurdish region in the north, to engage in targeted operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq, and to train and equip Iraqi forces.[71] In supporting significant U.S. troop levels in Iraq for the indefinite future, Clinton's position is quite close to that of the Iraq Study Group.[71]
On August 22, 2007, Clinton credited the troop surge and related new tactics with helping to produce the Anbar Awakening in Al Anbar Governorate,[72] but said that overall the increase in troops had not met stated goals: "The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution. It has failed."[72] Furthermore, Clinton, following the lead of Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin, called on the Iraqi Parliament to replace Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister of Iraq with "a less divisive and more unifying figure," saying that Maliki had failed to make progress in bridging differences between the hostile factions within Iraq: "Iraqi leaders have not met their own political benchmarks to share power, modify the de-Baathification laws, pass an oil law, schedule provincial elections, and amend their constitution."[73] (Four days later, Maliki responded angrily to the suggestion, saying, "There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy. I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."[74])
By late November 2007, with still more evidence that the surge and other tactics and developments had led to a significant lessening of the civil violence in Iraq,[75] Clinton acknowledged the successes but said that the underlying equation had not changed: "Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference. The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks. We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it."[76] She also sent an open letter to President Bush, expressing concern about a possibly permanent U.S. base-level presence in Iraq: "To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts."[77] Clinton remained generally unwilling to commit to how long U.S. troops would remain in Iraq if she were president. |
Source: Wikipedia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
15 Billion X 12 months = 180 Billion.
Receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2,407 billion. (source Wikipedia)
180/2,407 = 7.5%
Thats pocket change. Also, FYI:
The IRS estimated that there were about $345 billion in uncollected taxes, which is sometimes referred to as the "tax gap." (Wikipedia)
There is MORE money that is owed in back taxes to the IRS, than is being spent in Iraq in a year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| An end to the war now would be even more costly in the long run than staying there. One of many reasons I was against the war in the beginning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:30 am Post subject: Re: Debt |
|
|
| chris_J2 wrote: |
| I wonder if GWB would be so foolish as to start a war with Iran, or North Korea, & just compound the problem? |
I doubt if GWB would in 2008.
But a lot of the other Republican candidates are masturbating all over each other trying to say that they surely would consider it - McCain's BOMB BOMB BOMB Iran song and Rudy 'Kill them All' Guiliani.
What I don't get is nearly all of these same candidates run on a 'fiscal conservative' platform on nearly every speech they give. Yet guys like Guiliani in particular also speak highly of being strongly willing to step up the war internationally on a lot more levels.
Building some of the largest biggest wall between two countries isn't exactly fiscally conservative either. Yet many in the same party would also love to spend a lot of taxpayer piddling around building those types of things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stephensessions
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A leading economist, I forget his name, I believe he wrote the book "The World is Flat" had a great article in Rolling Stone magazine a few months ago. He put the cost of the war at 2.3 Trillion dollars, if it were to end today. Quite a sum, imagine puting that amount into renewable energy, schools, or social security. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
