The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 June 28, 2007
Please note how many years they project the war in the middle east may go one. This being the case I'll bet that budgets at LLNL and LANL will be reduced every year for the next ten years. If the budgets stay flat I'd be amazed having seen this information.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding for Iraq and the GWOT could reach from about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017. This report will be updated as warranted
4 comments:
"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding for Iraq and the GWOT could reach from about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017. This report will be updated as warranted."
So when this is all over ten years from now and lets assume best case scenario that the region is stabilized and we now have Exxon and chevron in their pumping oil, will we see reduced prices or just spend the next 50 years paying off the debt? What's you take on this BS cause? Will LLNL budget get increased over the next 10 years or be continually reduced by 10% a year whereby every year from now on we can bank of a RIF? I'm betting on the later. In the nutshell this spell and end to an era and a considerable reduced work force at all National Labs. In all reality the middle east has already won the war by virtue of America's economic implosion.
Remember that a flat budget sounds OK until you factor in inflation. With inflation included, a flat budget is an approximate 7% per year decrease in buying power.
Total budget is irrelevant. So is whether there is a war going on. The US has wars all the time.
What does matter is whether the US government wants to invest in the future or not. Truthfully, they have not for quite a while. Not just the labs, the whole military is wearing out. Not to mention roads, dams, bridges, power grid, etc.
Given the trend, Iraq may look more advanced they we are in a couple of years.
"What does matter is whether the US government wants to invest in the future or not. "
The answer to that is NO. Not unless the rich can find a way to make it so the investment fills their pockets. So the roads, dams, bridges, power grid, etc are irrelevant simply because once they are gone or damaged the people will do without. Then they will be repairs at a much higher cost whereby the company makes big bucks and your rates go up. Now, there's where the profit is. They have no pans on fixing anything in the United States. Why should they. Their labor force is overseas at a much cheaper rate and no benefits or liability the same as everyone in the US will be very soon. It's all about cheap labor that'll make profit for the big boys. The only way this will be revrse is when the day come that those on the Chinese assembly lines are making $40 and hour.
When that happen these big companies will quit going there and exploiting their people.
Post a Comment