Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 25 2016, @10:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the aggression-is-expensive dept.

The Intercept reports:

The total U.S. budgetary cost of war since 2001 is $4.79 trillion, according to a report [PDF] [...] from Brown University's Watson Institute. That's the highest estimate yet.

Neta Crawford of Boston University, the author of the report, included interest on borrowing, future veterans needs, and the cost of homeland security in her calculations.

The amount of $4.79 trillion, "so large as to be almost incomprehensible", she writes, adds up like this:

  • The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and other overseas operations already cost $1.7 trillion between 2001 and August 2016 with $103 billion more requested for 2017
  • Homeland Security terrorism prevention costs from 2001 to 2016 were $548 billion.
  • The estimated DOD base budget was $733 billion and veterans spending was $213 billion.
  • Interest incurred on borrowing for wars was $453 billion.
  • Estimated future costs for veterans' medical needs until the year 2053 is $1 trillion.
  • And the amounts the DOD, State Department, and Homeland Security have requested for 2017 ($103 billion).

Crawford carried out a similar study[PDF] in June 2014 that estimated the cost of war at $4.4 trillion.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:26PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:26PM (#418524)

    If the middle class has been forced to shop at WalMart these days, from what I can see, they're not starving.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:30PM (#418578)

    Maybe they are not starving, but they are suffering from poor nutrition. It is just as damaging to their health as starvation (results in diminished life satisfaction and eventual death), thou not as immediate.

    Poor nutrition brought on by economic forces is very tragic. There are very good examples such as this [nih.gov] this [who.int] and this [bbc.com]. What is happening to the Walmart crowd is quite similar.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:16PM (#418656)

      What a bunch of politically correct drivel. People get fat because they eat too damned much. Some starving would do them good.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:25PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:25PM (#418664)

      If they are suffering from poor nutrition, it's due to poor choices of foods they stick in their faces. There's plenty of calories available, in many forms - nobody is forcing them to eat at McDonalds.

      However, having said that, the fast and unhealthy food industry is quite strong, and gained a lot of ex-tobacco leadership in the late 1980s / early 1990s when tobacco was getting legislated into lower profitability. A sizeable chunk of the American population is addicted to unhealthy foods, and it's not just because they choose to indulge - the formulation and marketing is specifically designed to make that happen, as it was for cigarettes.

      But, back to the earlier point, the middle class can afford food, healthy food if they want, junk food if they're addicted, but either is well within their means.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]