CBO Details Costs Of Future Iraq Peacekeeping

[gratefuldawg77]

CBO Details Costs Of Future Iraq Peacekeeping, By Martin Kady II - CBS News

Under the "combat" scenario, the cost would run $25 billion a year, while a peacekeeping operation would cost $10 billion a year. Conrad appears to have asked the CBO to conduct the study not because he supports the idea of a long-term troop presence but to highlight the trillion dollar cost over the next 50 years if the Korea scenario is actually followed. “President Bush has repeatedly drawn an analogy between the Iraq and Korean wars and his administration has suggested that our ongoing presence in Korea could provide a model for Iraq,” Conrad said. “The American people deserve to know that they are going to be handed a multi-trillion dollar bill from this President to cover the cost of his misguided policy in Iraq.”

....and socialized healthcare costs to much for Republicans? The world's gone mad.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gratefuldawg77 ....and socialized healthcare costs to much for Republicans? The world's gone mad.

It's not that it costs too much, it's where the money goes, and whom it empowers.

[gratefuldawg77]

Yeah, we can't have healthy poor people. :rolleyes: The less the poor are backed into fianancial corner the less likely they are to enlist in the military and fight your wars.

[Milton Bradley]

Oh, so you're implying that the health care is proper user of tax dollars, where I was implying that both the war, and socialized health care were egregious abuses of the constitution, and therefore the law.


Sorry, not on your side here.

[Scribbler1]

It's just a compatrison between the Congress' penny pinching "on behalf of the people" and them throwing boatloads of money at whatever their great ruler wants, the way I see it. I don't see it as one specific thing, but more a duplicitous and hypocritical mindset on the part of Congress and the president.

[Zeebadee]

Have the long-term costs of providing life long medical care for the thousands of maimed-for-life GI's from this asinine war been factored into this estimate? We're going to be paying medical and disability costs for the next 60-70 years.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee Have the long-term costs of providing life long medical care for the thousands of maimed-for-life GI's from this asinine war been factored into this estimate? We're going to be paying medical and disability costs for the next 60-70 years.

Assuming our medical system is competent enough to maintain such massive longterm efforts (or that the government cares much at all).

Also, I would assume the US government may end up paying additional expenses for thousands upon thousands of wounded and dead Iraqi civilians (I'm sure some tax money is going to medical professionals for related efforts).

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree with Milton, and offer a kudos to how well this....

"Oh, so you're implying that the health care is proper user of tax dollars, where I was implying that both the war, and socialized health care were egregious abuses of the constitution, and therefore the law."

...was worded.

Like many democrats leftists, it seems the OP wants to play "tit-for-tat" as opposed to actually "doing whats legal, constitutional, and morally just according to the concept of individual rights and the INCUMBENT responsibilities that come with individual ownership."

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I agree with Milton, and offer a kudos to how well this....

Government involvement in a national health care system may possibly be justified by the phrase, "...promote the general welfare..." in the Preamble to the Constitution.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zeebadee Government involvement in a national health care system may possibly be justified by the phrase, "...promote the general welfare..." in the Preamble to the Constitution.

How can you fund this in a constitutional manor?


As far as my strict interpretation of apportioned, and direct taxes goes, it would be impossible to fund these types of programs without coercion, hence Hillarys constant reference to "mandated health insurance". Mandate equals force.


It seems the majority is willing to trample the same sub-groups time, and time again, and yet I thought that that very type of abuse is what the constitution was supposed to be protecting me from.


I guess that goes a long way toward why some of us prefer the strict interpretation.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Milton Bradley How can you fund this in a constitutional manor? As far as my strict interpretation of apportioned, and direct taxes goes, it would be impossible to fund these types of programs without coercion, hence Hillarys constant reference to "mandated health insurance". Mandate equals force. It seems the majority is willing to trample the same sub-groups time, and time again, and yet I thought that that very type of abuse is what the constitution was supposed to be protecting me from. I guess that goes a long way toward why some of us prefer the strict interpretation.

Aren't income taxes collected by coercion? Hasn't that been found to be constitutional?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zeebadee Aren't income taxes collected by coercion? Hasn't that been found to be constitutional?

Again, that is subject to which interpretation you think is valid.


We will forever maintain original intent is being overlooked by the other camp.