|
28 Sep 06 - 07:06 PM (#1845494) Subject: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: GUEST,NPR Listener Report: U.S. Spending $2 Billion a Week in Iraq NPR "A new analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service shows the continued U.S.-led occupation of Iraq is now costing U.S. taxpayers almost $2 billion per week -- an increase of 20 percent from 2005." "DOD can not pass an audit" They do not keep records on how the money is spent and can not tell Congress where the money goes but the costs have risen 20%. U.S. Spending $2 Billion a Week in Iraq While the U.S. infrastructure crumbles.... |
|
28 Sep 06 - 07:24 PM (#1845521) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Ebbie The sad thing is that if we in the US were paying as we went most of us would be living homeless on the street. Instead, our children and their children and their children's children will be paying for the cost of this one endless war. |
|
28 Sep 06 - 08:33 PM (#1845576) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: GUEST Yes Ebbie our kids are really the ones that are going to see the "SHOCK and AWE"! From a March 17 MSN Article: "Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts the final figure at a staggering $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops. Additional costs include a negative impact from the rising cost of oil and added interest on the national debt." The current ticker on the cost of the war is: $318 Billion. National Priorities Project:: Running total cost ticker |
|
28 Sep 06 - 08:37 PM (#1845578) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Barry Finn "Waist deep in the Big Sandy and the big fool says to keep on" Barry |
|
29 Sep 06 - 02:51 PM (#1846225) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Big Al Whittle if we had any sense we would be trying to think of something to sell these guys with two biliion dollars a week to spend...... nope, can't think of anything..... |
|
30 Sep 06 - 10:30 AM (#1846833) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Barry Finn That's the problem. Someone sold us a war & we bought it. Barry |
|
01 Oct 06 - 01:04 AM (#1847343) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: 282RA With the 2006 midterm elections just around the corner, let's delve into something about the Iraq Invasion that cannot be blamed on Bill Clinton—yes, I speak of the contractor fraud scandal. The waste, fraud and abuse by Americans and Coalition contractors that is going on in Iraq and which has been going on ever since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is a disgrace. As of this writing, $9 billion have been looted from the U.S. Treasury and is simply missing. George Bush is himself complicit in the theft. After the overthrow of Saddam in 2003, an interim government was set up in Iraq, mainly by the U.S. and Great Britain, with full executive, judicial and legislative powers. It was called the Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA. In May 2003, George Bush tapped Lewis Paul Bremer III to replace Jay Garner as head the CPA under the title of Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Before leaving the post and the country of Iraq in June 2004, L. Paul Bremer would completely dismantle the Iraqi governmental infrastructure and completely gut its military force and destroy its media. With no financial infrastructure or banking system left in Iraq after the CPA dismantling, there was no way to pay workers with checks, no way to transfer funds and no safe location to store them. Bremer requested $12 billion in cash from the U.S. Treasury, which Bush ordered to be appropriated (a blatantly illegal act since the president does not have this authority). The cash was sent to Iraq loaded onto palettes. The palettes were delivered to their destinations via truck. From there, the cash was simply handed out to contractors and government employees who kept hundreds of thousands of dollars in their footlockers which did not even have locks! One contractor, who served in Iraq at this time, referred to those heady days as "the Wild West." Contractors literally stuffed their pockets with the cash. Some, who tried to keep a good accounting of the money entrusted to them, often found their lockers had been looted by their less ethical but greedier colleagues who then simply left. This is made all the more galling by the fact that Bremer's money was not supposed to come from American taxpayers but from Iraqi oil revenues as per United Nations Resolution 1483. Bremer was supposed to answer to the UN concerning how these revenues were being spent including a detailed accounting of the following: · Expenditures that were being used to benefit the Iraqi people. · The programs to receive funding were decided upon, and supervised in an open, transparent manner. · The CPA's hiring of a team of internal auditors that would set up and monitor an accounting system. · Iraqis that were invited to give meaningful input into how funds were to be spent. · How the administrator of Iraq (Bremer himself) was co-operating with the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB). · Proper fiscal controls that are in place so that Bremer could demonstrate that none of the funds were being diverted nor misspent. All of these points were violated again and again under Bremer's auspices as Iraq's acting administrator. Although officially answerable in part to the U.N., Bremer answered only to Rumsfeld who showed no concern with postwar planning (even going so far as threatening to fire anybody at the Pentagon who dared to bring the subject up in his presence). When IAMB external auditors arrived in Baghdad to inspect the CPA accounting system, they discovered, to their shock, a single contracted consultant, a Bush-supporter with no experience in accounting, attempting to keep track of all Iraq's finances with a series of spreadsheets. The consultant knew nothing of the standard "double entry" accounting system that produces a bottom line by balancing credits against debits. Instead, noted the IAMB auditors, this man used a "single entry, cash-based, transaction list." This meant there was no way to track how much was being spent or what it was being spent on or whether there were any returns. Although cash spent from the initial $12 billion was supposed to be accounted for monthly and money spent on personal items was to be paid back, the IAMB discovered that nearly a year had passed before any cash reconciliation had taken place—far too late to represent an accurate record or to prevent rampant thievery. The CPA's main contractor was Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR). Prior to taking the job as vice president in the Bush administration, Dick Cheney had been chairman of Halliburton and yet no conflict-of-interest issues were raised. These contracts were "no-bid," i.e. were simply given to Halliburton who could then charge whatever they wished for their services. In this manner, cost overruns became a rampant problem in virtually all reconstruction projects. In at least one case, Halliburton served contaminated water to troops prompting a Halliburton employee to resign in protest. One of the many projects Halliburton was given was the rebuilding of the oilfields and refineries. The IAMB auditors discovered that while well-heads and pipelines were rebuilt, the oil meters were not. Without the meters, there was simply no way to know how much oil was being produced, how much was being sold, and how much might be getting smuggled or sold on the black market. The IAMB would continue to complain to Bremer about the urgent need to repair the meters and Bremer would reassure them that progress was being made. By the time Bremer left Iraq, however, not a single meter had yet been fixed. The CPA now admits that oil-smuggling has taken place as a result of this negligence. This was a violation of Resolution 1483 and is the responsibility of L. Paul Bremer who has never been charged and who has never offered an explanation for why he never fixed the oil meters nor why he lied about it. When Stuart Bowen, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, investigated the CPA's accounting and fiscal management, he released his findings in a report in January 2005. Bowen found that many contract employees receiving payments were non-existent. The problem was so bad that Bowen could only account for 602 actual employees on a register that listed 8,206. He found that the CPA had allowed Iraqi officials not to declare receiving $2.5 billion in oil-for-food payments. Bowen concluded that about $9 billion of U.S. taxpayer money in Iraq has more or less evaporated. Bremer disputed Bowen's report saying that Bowen and his auditors refused to take into account the extraordinary conditions under which the CPA was forced to operate—even though the worst of it was caused by the CPA itself. Bremer went on to charge that Bowen's people never tried to interview CPA officials to get their side of the story. Auditors' notes, however, state consistently that CPA officials rarely if ever made themselves available, including Bremer himself. George Wolfe, who functioned as treasurer for the CPA, was noted to be downright uncooperative. Some of the contractor fraud was repeated on the Gulf Coast of the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina struck in September 2005: normally a company would seek to farm out reconstruction contracts to various companies who put in bids and offer various services but instead the projects were given to "contractors" who had no equipment or connection to the construction field. They would, in turn, farm out the work to true construction contractors or to another contractor who then farm out the work to other companies. The more needless middlemen that inserted themselves and skimming money off the top, the less money was actually paying for work to be done and so, consequently, the work simply didn't get done. Other investigations by government offices have revealed contractors being paid sometimes four times for the same job with each payment being exorbitant. When one such plumbing job was investigated, inspectors found that the plumbing hadn't even been replaced although that was what the superfluous billings were for. The inspectors could clearly see that the pipes had merely been polished in an attempt to make them look new. In another case, a contractor was paid numerous times for a non-existent repair on an elevator that promptly broke while in operation and plummeted down the shaft, killing an Iraqi worker. Upon his return to the U.S., Bremer went on speaking engagements and was frequently questioned about the missing billions. He replied, "I suggest you not worry, as that $9 billion was Iraqi money, not US money." How the thought of American contractors stealing billions from the Iraqis after the U.S. invaded their country on false charges could somehow be more palatable than if the money had been taken from American taxpayers is not explained by Bremer. His answer is, of course, not his own but the administration's. The Bush administration is expert at skillful lying and deception such as when Bush is pressured to sign into law bills he doesn't favor such as a "no-torture" bill, he then issues a "signing statement" that essentially says, "Since we are in a time of war and I am president, I therefore reserve wartime powers for myself where I may do as I see fit in order to protect the people and therefore I don't have to follow this law I have signed if I don't want to and no one can do anything about it." Signing statements are only a small part of the Bush administration arsenal for evading the law and human rights. In the case of whistle-blowers, the law used to prosecute offenders is the False Claims Act which came out around the time of the Civil War. Attorney Alan Grayson is employing the False Claims Act so that whistle-blowers may sue those companies that defraud and keep some of the money recovered. Grayson has been able to sue contractor Custer Battles LLC where they were ordered to return $10 million to the government for setting up false companies that received payment for non-existent services. The problem is that cases filed under the False Claims Act are sealed. This means they cannot move forward until the government, under the Bush administration, joins the lawsuit. This is exactly the loophole the administration needs to destroy the corruption investigation. The False Claims Act requires the government to take a position on the case within 60 days. The administration simply neglects to do this and some of these cases are over two years old and there is really nothing that can be done about it. Without the government's participation, the cases simply cannot go forward and because they are sealed they cannot even be discussed. This means the corruption probe is dead in the water. How can the government skirt the law so openly? The False Claims Act allows the Justice Department to ask for extensions. They can ask for as many as they want and for as long as they want. The False Claims Act operates on the premise that the government has been defrauded and is mad and wants its money back. In this case, however, the government is the very thief. The government itself is doing the stealing and then refusing to prosecute itself. To further cloud the issue, even though Grayson won the Custer Battles suit, $10 million is a pittance when the firm was known to have stolen over $50 million. Grayson couldn't get that money because it is tied up in a legal wrangle of whether or not the money is American or Iraqi. If the money is Iraq's then the False Claims Act does not apply as it is written only to apply to American money. Grayson has argued that the money came from the U.S. Treasury. Custer Battles lawyers say the money came from the CPA from the sale of Hussein's palaces, his international banking accounts and oil revenues. Both are right. The money came from Iraqi sources but the CPA was funded by American money with contracts printed on American forms and the money fronted from the U.S. Treasury. The essence of the case lies in whether the CPA is truly American or truly international. And that's where the Bush administration lawyers get their victory. There are no official documents that tell us exactly who formed the CPA—Bush or the U.N. There are no official documents explaining exactly what the CPA is. Some documents call it a government agency while others are emphatic that it is not. Before the CPA, Iraq was run in the early days of the post-invasion period by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) under Jay Garner. By May, Bush sent Bremer to Iraq to take over and the CPA was announced with U.N. Security Council approval. What was not announced was whether the CPA actually replaced ORHA and to this day it has never been resolved. Until it is, there is no legal way to determine whether the CPA is a part of the American government or an independent entity. This virtually guarantees that most of the fraud committed by the CPA will never be tried in American courts. Grayson's victory offers some hope but so far only promises to recover a tiny portion of the stolen money with the guilty parties keeping far more than they lose. Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Brain Baird are working on a new bill that would update the False Claims Act by removing the loopholes that allow the Bush administration to stonewall the trials. The bill would remove the indefinite extensions the current law allows and replaces it with one six-month extension after which a decision must be made. To not join the suits would damage the government's image as soft on corruption. To join them, would force the government to prosecute the thieves it has appointed to oversee reconstruction in Iraq and therefore jeopardize its own credibility. So they sit back and remain silent and there is nothing that can be done about it. The Lofgren-Baird bill stands little to no chance of passing in a Congress more than willing to assist the administration in the fleecing of the American people and those in Iraq. "We are not engaged in the Iraq war so that corporations could be free to rip off Iraqi money and property that the U.S. helps administer," says Lofgren, but she's wrong. That is exactly why the U.S. is there and the administration and Congress will never allow the big players—Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld—in the scam to called to account. A case will be won here and there but ultimately they are going to get away with it and most Americans don't care. When you run an enterprise and discover rampant corruption under your administration, you have some choices: if you are honest and decent, you are shocked and angered enough to bring the crooks working under you to justice and overhaul your hiring and screening practices; if you are a crook, you simply ignore it. George Bush has chosen to ignore the fraud his administration has fostered and he is therefore a crook. He cannot hide behind by acting like a stupid but well-meaning buffoon taken advantage of by the crooks and rogues that infiltrated his party (although he's still responsible even if that is the case). His continued indifference of the law-breaking and thievery can no longer be explained as anything other than criminal negligence. But the biggest problem in the prosecution of these offenders is the American people themselves. Frankly, they don't care about the fraud. These crooks can steal them blind just so long as we win in Iraq. With the drop in oil, I have already heard more times than I can count, "Looks like Bush's war is starting to pay off." You can argue that all you want but it won't make any difference. That is how they see it and that is how they are going to vote. Some labor under the delusion that with the democrats in office, this corruption probe will go forward. Chances are, it will not speed up appreciably. People also think that with the GOP losing control of Congress, Bush will be impeached. This may be true but the sad truth is, most Americans don't want to see Bush impeached. The democrats can't even talk about it at this point or they will turn voters off. One would think that voters would be screaming for blood. They are not. They're mad at George Bush for not handling this war with authority but they ultimately believe he has it in him to do so because god knows them liberals sure don't. Better to let Bush handle it—if the goddamn democrats would just get off his back and let him do what has to be done. Get ready for another "unprecedented" victory for the GOP in November. And don't count on a democrat winning office in '08. The democratic frontrunner is Hilary Clinton and nobody in their right mind is going to vote for her and that includes me. She is a traitor and I have no faith in her to do anything any better than George Bush. The time for a democratic victory is now, this November, so that impeachment hearings can be held but it is not going to happen. Don't get mad at crooked George. Get mad at your fellow Americans. They are the ones to blame. They're the ones who find the lies and thefts palatable to voting with a conscience. |
|
01 Oct 06 - 12:23 PM (#1847580) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: GUEST,Greycap Nice to see the cash is going on something worthwhile, it could be wasted on peace or something. A good friend of mine is going to kabul in december to help build an airfield. The way I recall it is:, (a) build the runway(b) Put MiGs on it(c) Bomb it, (d) Build a runway.......Migs......Bomb it.....Build...logic? Go figure |
|
01 Oct 06 - 12:28 PM (#1847581) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: GUEST Sell the kids. Into whore houses, into slavery, into war (same thing in the end). Give the stock market something to get excited about. Fuck, They're just kids. More where they came from. Makes one proud to be human, doesn't it? |
|
02 Oct 06 - 12:47 AM (#1847988) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: dick greenhaus Oh hell. What did posterity ever do for us? |
|
01 Jan 07 - 02:20 AM (#1923757) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: katlaughing 3,000 Americans killed in Iraq and counting... War can make poets. The British World War I soldier Wilfred Owen had lived as a minor disciple of literary giants until he was thrust into the abattoir of Europe's cataclysmic war to discover the brutal theme of his art. "Nor is it about deeds, or lands, nor anything about glory, honour, might, majesty, dominion, or power, except War," he wrote. "My subject is War, and the pity of War." The war invested meaning into his words, giving them a dark significance that still evokes heartbreak. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 02:46 AM (#1923762) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Little Hawk Hey, this sort of thing happened all the time in ancient Rome too. Just the usual. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 02:46 AM (#1923763) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: GUEST,ifor An excellent thread! And the ongoing occupation of Iraq is also costing the British taxpayer billions......at a time when affordable housing is out of reach of many and child poverty affects one in three in Wales where I live. ifor |
|
01 Jan 07 - 04:07 AM (#1923794) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Slag Cheap at twice the price! Why, the entertainment factor alone is worth it! The gumment isn't going to let you keep the money anyway. You just spend it on frivolous things like education, scientific research, social programs. And this way the don't have to keep raising the Fed! They can take money out of circulaiton, reduce one debt ceiling and raise another. I love progress! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 04:10 AM (#1923797) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Slag An d correct me if I'm wrong but I heard it was 2 billion a DAY! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 06:02 AM (#1923829) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: GUEST,Ol' Redneck Money well spent if it keeps you pansies free from Communism. Sheesh, that was the last scare, wasn't it? But anyway, we need enemies. Without the bogeyman we get soft and complacent and start thinking for ourselves. And, sides, po trash don;t need healthcare and the like - better to get 'em in uniform, off our streets and onto someone elses. and who really cares if they murder a bunch of gooks or ragheads - if the lives of blacks in New Orleans don;t matter shit, what hope for a bunch of brown folks in another country? The way I see it, that money is like an insurance premium to keep the US as the world's most hated nation. And what's wrong with that? Shit, noone needs friends, do they? We've got all the culture the world will ever need, so the rest of the planet can go piss up a rope. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:12 PM (#1924424) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Big Phil Yes, and there is more to come, Bush wants to send another 30,000 troops over to Iraq, according to the news on the BBC............ Wonder of our Tony will back him with more of our troops, probably. Also on the BBC news, thousands of Sunnis wanting revenge for Saddams execution, its just getting better every day.......... |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:35 PM (#1924438) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: dianavan This invasion, unlike World War II, is not supported by the public. If it were, the U.S. public would have ration cards and other 'war measures' to help support the costs of the campaign. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:53 PM (#1924462) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Cruiser Cost has been about 9 billion per month. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:58 PM (#1924466) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Peace And lots of that went back to Halliburton, so it's cheap at a third the price. I think so, anyway. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 11:41 PM (#1924500) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Ebbie I participated in a vigil tonight in silent recognition of 3,000 vibrant, dutiful lives that were snuffed out, blown up, crushed, along with many more broken families. As I stood there gazing into the candle lit center of the circle I tried to visualize how much room 3000 bright and colorful flagdraped coffins would require... But I believe I finally know WHY we are at war. Bear with me: For the month of January I will be on call for jury duty. I have been called a number of times in my life but for a variety of reasons- moved out of county, no jury trials scheduled - I have never served on a jury. This year for the first time I could have checked the box that informed them I am more than 70 years old and thus avail myself of the freedom not to be called ever again. I didn't check it because just once in my life I want to serve on a jury. So. I believe that Bush, having evaded it in the 70s, decided when he became President that just once, just once in his life, he wanted to go to war. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 01:22 AM (#1924546) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: katlaughing Phew, Ebbie, that is powerful. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 09:20 AM (#1924712) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: GUEST Can't believe I read that! Is that the sum total of our grasp of American foreign policy. If it is we are really finished . why cant people realise that the workings of those who rule us are far from simple. Bush may be "intellectually challenged" but the machine which moves his arms and legs, contorts his vocal chords into producing semi intelligible words, is not in the least simple...or benevolent. The machine took a calculated gamble in Iraq...not a real gamble because we always pay when the machine loses...in young lives and money. It was a wild gamble which for once went against the layers and now we the US/UK people are picking up the tab! But to hear people on what is a reaonably literate forum contend that they can be fucked by a bunch of strangers and not feel anything, is soul destroying.....AKE |
|
02 Jan 07 - 09:22 AM (#1924715) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Greg F. I believe that Bush, having evaded it in the 70s, decided when he became President that just once, just once in his life, he wanted to go to war. Yeah, just like he did last time - protecting Texas from Viet Cong invasion, while developing a bad case of bottle fatigue. Give him a rifle & put him on a transport- and good riddance. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 09:22 PM (#1925281) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Big Phil Ebbie How many have returned to the States alive with mutilated bodies and crushed minds. We hear very little of these casualties, but I suspect the numbers will be terrible, in tens of thousands?. Was it a price worth paying, I think not........... and Bush is set on sending another 30,000. In one of the great wars "cannon fodder" was the term used, the soldiers were expendable, I get the feeling Bush looks on the brave US forces in this same way....... It makes it all the more difficult at this time of the year when ordinary folks are enjoying the seasons festivities, and our wonderful leaders are seen laughing and joking, its no joke on the front line in Iraq...... BRING THEM HOME NOW. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 09:47 PM (#1925293) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Peace Folks, Ebbie was being satirical. Her post was facetious. The lady would never support the actions of Bush in this matter. And I know for fact she is aware of the casualties, both dead and wounded. FYI. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 10:23 PM (#1925315) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: akenaton Bruce ...I can do satirical....But it didn't sound satirical to me, it sounded simplistic. Even if it was posted "tongue in cheek" it gave the impression that bush is capable of making serious foreign policy decisions and THEN reading them out in public....Ake |
|
02 Jan 07 - 10:31 PM (#1925320) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Peace "I participated in a vigil tonight in silent recognition of 3,000 vibrant, dutiful lives that were snuffed out, blown up, crushed, along with many more broken families. As I stood there gazing into the candle lit center of the circle I tried to visualize how much room 3000 bright and colorful flagdraped coffins would require..." Please re-read her post. It is as beautiful a piece of writing as has ever been posted to Mudcat, and it comes from one of the most beautiful people ever to post on Mudcat. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 10:41 PM (#1925323) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: akenaton Well thats a commendation indeed. I'll take your word Bruce Good to hear from you...Still waiting for that story about GL. Its 3.45 over here so I got to get movin' Take care...A |
|
02 Jan 07 - 10:48 PM (#1925327) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Peace Thank you, Ake, very much. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 05:15 PM (#2285672) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Donuel Its now triple what it was befire the surge. $12,000,000,000.00 per month On top of that lets look at this mortgage derivitaive bubble. Data on the five-fold growth of derivatives to $516 trillion in five years comes from the most recent survey by the Bank of International Settlements, the world's clearinghouse for central banks in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS is like the cashier's window at a racetrack or casino, where you'd place a bet or cash in chips, except on a massive scale: BIS is where the U.S. settles trade imbalances with Saudi Arabia for all that oil we guzzle and gives China IOUs for the tainted drugs and lead-based toys we buy. To grasp how significant this five-fold bubble increase is, let's put that $516 trillion in the context of some other domestic and international monetary data: U.S. annual gross domestic product is about $15 trillion U.S. money supply is also about $15 trillion Current proposed U.S. federal budget is $3 trillion U.S. government's maximum legal debt is $9 trillion U.S. mutual fund companies manage about $12 trillion World's GDPs for all nations is approximately $50 trillion Unfunded Social Security and Medicare benefits $50 trillion to $65 trillion Total value of the world's real estate is estimated at about $75 trillion Total value of world's stock and bond markets is more than $100 trillion BIS valuation of world's derivatives back in 2002 was about $100 trillion BIS 2007 valuation of the world's derivatives is now a whopping $516 trillion OPPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! link |
|
11 Mar 08 - 05:55 PM (#2285719) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: ard mhacha The biggest fool of all was Blair, going to war on the coat-tails of a brain-dead yank. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 05:58 PM (#2285723) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Bobert Yeah, Donuel has it correct... It's $12B a month and that comes out to more like $3B a weekm not $2B... |
|
11 Mar 08 - 06:08 PM (#2285732) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Barry Finn Is that before the vets come home & bankurpt the health care system? Who's counting on the costs to take care of them in the future? And for how long, no wornder the VA's in a state of their medical denile. Barry |
|
11 Mar 08 - 06:37 PM (#2285754) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: dick greenhaus If you divide 3 billion by the number of taxpayers in the US, it comes out to about $1600 per week per taxpayer.Very nteresting...but stupid. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 06:39 PM (#2285756) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Peace Pretty soon that's gonna add up to real money . . . . |
|
11 Mar 08 - 06:39 PM (#2285757) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: artbrooks Don't blame the VA, Barry...it is the political appointees who make the budget requests and set the priorities. I spent many years in budget meetings at the Medical Center level as we tried to figure out how we were going to manage with a 10% increase from the suppliers, a 4% mandated (and deserved) salary increase, and a flat-lined or even decreased budget allocation. Do you hire behind the doctor who retired? Or do you let wait times increase and replace the x-ray equipment instead? Or do you fix the leaks in the steam heating plant? Can't do but one. How do you deal with an increase in patient visits and a mandated staff cut? And that was before the current stupidity created a whole new generation of veterans. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 06:46 PM (#2285763) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Barry Finn You are right Art, it's not the VA itself but those who oversee the system that runs it. There's enough blame to go around but in the end the buck stops at the Bush Outhouse that were all the flushing been taking place. Barry |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:12 PM (#2285779) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: pdq "If you divide 3 billion by the number of taxpayers in the US, it comes out to about $1600 per week per taxpayer.Very nteresting...but stupid. " Sounds like some real Greenhaus gas there. Actualy figures are approx. $18/week/taxpayer or approx. $9/per week/per US citizen. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:13 PM (#2285781) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Peace Don't matter. It's still gonna add up to real money! |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:29 PM (#2285793) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: pdq My share amounts to about two six packs per week. To the Iraqi people: "This Bud's for you!" Hope they get a nice place to live. It was Hell under Saddam. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:30 PM (#2285794) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Peace That's true. But it ain't heaven under Bush! |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:36 PM (#2285801) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: skipy Bring them ALL home NOW & turn it into obsidion. Skipy |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:43 PM (#2285806) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Lonesome EJ Just curious. In the last quarter of 2007, oil production in Iraq averaged 2.16 million barrels per day. Where is that revenue going? |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:48 PM (#2285813) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: pdq On that one we are being generous to a fault. We let the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people keep all the oil money. I think about 1/2 should come back to help us pay for their freedom, but that is not possible now due to politics. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 01:09 AM (#2286024) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Lonesome EJ Excuse me if I seem sceptical, pdq. At current market value of 100 dollars per barrel, that would be 216,000,000 dollars per day. The Iraqi people are getting this? Check this on the MSNBC news site : Last week, Sens. Carl Levin, a Democrat, and John Warner, a Republican, asked GAO to investigate what Iraq is doing with its oil revenue. The senators estimated that Iraq will realize "at least $100 billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008." Currently, the Iraqi Government is hording this treasure while the US citizens are being charged 3 billion a week to prop up this same government!!??? Does anyone actually believe that this money will end up in the hands of the people of Iraq? Damn right part of it should be used to defray the cost of the war, and part of it should be put to work immediately to rebuild infrastructure, train troops, and raise the standard of living of the people of Iraq! Why the hell isn't that an election issue right now? |
|
12 Mar 08 - 01:20 AM (#2286026) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Amos Damn good question. We know a small part of it goes to fuel Iraq itself, but their internal hassles with getting more than a few hours of electricity a day are largely because the Oil Ministry won't play nice with the Electricity ministry, and begrudges them oil. And that only accounts for a little. So it would be challenging to demand a transparent accounting of the money being spent there by the US and the money being spent, or hoarded, or siphoned off, by the Iraqis from oil revenue. I'd really like to see that spreadsheet. Jaysus what an idiotic bunch of swampmud this Administration has tangled us up in. A |
|
12 Mar 08 - 01:28 AM (#2286029) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Lonesome EJ To read more about this unbelievable situation, click. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:00 AM (#2286289) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Amos Estimated surplus of sixty billion. "But according to other U.S. officials, a major problem is that Iraq does not have the capacity to allocate the money without it being wasted or pocketed by corrupt officials." "I think they are beginning to do more," particularly in improving its military and buying new weapon systems, said Claude Kicklighter, the Pentagon's inspector general. "And I think that's certainly the trend that we should be following." Hmm...their population is too immoral to reconstruct their nation, because the money disappears into waste and private pockets? Here's an idea: put into place layers of American middle mmanagers, thousands of whom are out of work here, and channel the Iraqi money through professioanl project managers. Pay them with Iraqi oil money they can send home. As for spending their billions on arms, did no one learn anything from the successful reconstruction of Japan for Christ's sake? A new-built armament is not what Iraq needs first, for crying out loud. How tragic and stupid. A |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:33 AM (#2286328) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Peace Apropos of nothing: I hope the Canadian government has the foresight to place a few nuclear weapons close to the tar sands. If it looks like our neighbours to the south are about to come 'help us with our oil supply', evacuate the region and set off the nukes. It reminds me of a scene from "Blazing Saddles". Despite Canada being 'small', we should know enough by now to fight dirty. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:35 AM (#2286407) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Amos COme to think of it, why not pull the volunteer troops and have the Iraqi government contract with Blackwater, L3, and the rest, directly for the security services? Rent the HumVees from Hummer? Buy their own security forces materiel from the lowest bidder? They can hire as much as they need and can afford, and the name of our fauir nation can stay out of it. A perfect Republican solution -- private enterprise solves embarassing diplomatic and political snafu!! Let's hear it for the free market!!! Ya think? A |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:57 AM (#2286432) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: dick greenhaus My apologies--I shouldn't try to do arithmetic in my head whn I'm tired. It's still very interesting....but stupid. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 12:02 PM (#2286438) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Lonesome EJ Not that crazy, Amos. I love that part about "Iraq does not have the capacity to allocate the money without it being wasted or pocketed by corrupt officials." So, instead, it is horded where nobody has access to it? Somewhere where "corrupt officials" can't touch it? Why not have a commission from Dubai set up and administer an allocation of these resources? Those people have certainly shown acumen in investing in their own country. If the US leaves Iraq with 60-100 billion in the coffers, that money will surely end up in the bank accounts of Maliki, Talibani, and the rest. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 12:22 PM (#2286469) Subject: RE: BS: Iraq cost: 2 Billion Dollars Each Week From: Donuel I could be wrong (like the homeless guy with his shopping cart yelling "The end is near") but the derivitive bubble looks like it is BIGGER than all the money and real estate in the world. When the bubble bursts we could see all banks fail leaving only a few banks left standing. They would gobble up all other banks. Historicly we once had a push to have only one Bank of the United States. I hate to say it but the World Bank could be the last man standing. |
