SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Total Cost of USA's Wars Since 2001 Approaches $5 Trillion
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 104 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Either I'm dead or my watch has stopped.
-- Groucho Marx's last words
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tisI on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:17PM
Obama care doesn't cost anything to you except your monthly mandatory insurance payment, which was thought up and implemented by republicans.
The only thing Obama did to the insurance system was to prevent insurance companies from denying you coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The rest is republican care all the way.
Your opinion is that of fox news corp. Nothing but propaganda without a scrap of truth.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:28PM
You're claiming the Republicans wrote the vast majority of Obamacare? Seriously? Wow. I don't think I've read a more willfully blind statement in my entire time on the Internet. Congrats!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:22PM
In an odd indirect way, yes. It is little more than Romneycare repackaged. That was because the Dems (winners of the lifetime rubber spine award) hoped the Rs might not fight so bitterly against an essentially Republican plan. Honestly, once it became clear the Rs would reject any D suggestion simply because tyhe Ds wanted it, they should have started over with an actual single payer system and fought it out very publicly.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:20PM
Anything that gets through a Republican controlled congress is Republican legislation.
Fox News et al knew this would be a contentious issue, so they granted ownership to Obama.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:43AM
But the Democrats controlled both houses when Obamacare passed. And they had to do some really janky shit to get it passed even with the majority. Anyone remember "The Louisiana Purchase" and "The Corn husker kickback"?
And WTF is the Speaker of the House saying "we have to pass it to see what is in it"? They can't even be bothered to read the laws they are passing? Peloski should have been fired or impeached for even thinking some shit like that.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:47PM
Honestly, once it became clear the Rs would reject any D suggestion simply because tyhe Ds wanted it, they should have started over with an actual single payer system and fought it out very publicly.
Overall I'm a fan of Single Payer myself (although I do have some reservations about it)... but putting that all aside, how would you address the question of Constitutionality.
The Supreme Court let the current Affordable Care Act sneak past with a figleaf of "it's really a tax," but a single payer has no such pretenses. Under what grounds of the Constitution would a single payer work; or are you saying they should pass a Constitutional amendment?
Also, I'm personally of the belief that Democrats are more right-leaning than they like to present themselves (and Republicans are more left-leaning, too), so I'm guessing the substantial majority of Democrats actually don't want Single Payer. Let's be optimistic and say 25% of the Democratic legislators don't support a like Single Payer due to it being too socialist... Even with such modest numbers, there is no way such a bill could pass Congress.
(Score: 3, Informative) by J053 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @08:02PM
Under what grounds of the Constitution would a single payer work; or are you saying they should pass a Constitutional amendment?
Under whatever grounds were used to justify Social Security and medicare. Just (1) eliminate the income cap on SS/Medicare tax (and apply it to all income - not just wages) and (b) open Medicare to everybody in the country.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 26 2016, @01:36AM
Bullshit. The Republicans never even had a chance to read that monstrosity before it was passed. Nobody did. It was humanly impossible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.