Who damage the economy?
When Clinton left the W.H. the Federal benchmark interest rate was 6.5%. In Bush's term, the rate drammatically dropped in 2001. Then to the bottom of 1% in 2003 and 2004. It's the low interest rate that pushes up the economy. You could see the result from income tax revenue chart that the Federal income tax started going up from 2003, 2004, but it also created a big bubble - the housing bubble. That bubble broke out in 2007, (You could see it's the peak of income tax revenue). It also caused the financial crisis next year.(2008)
Real estate industry is an important factor of GDP. The housing bubble is still hurting the economy right now. Even now they low the interest rate to nearly zero, they can't recover the housing industry. (Because of piled up fore-closured houses from that bubble)
It's evident that Bush created the housing bubble that damaged the US economy. That bubble is still there, continuely erode the economy.
Who damage the economy?
Who damage the economy?
That's only one part of the problem. What about the loss of purchasing power of the middle class? That's what kept consumerism going. There are not a lot of family wage jobs left, people are spooked and a lot of us don't even know if we will have a job a year from now. This depression (I'm calling a spade a spade here) is not going to be over soon and will most likely get worse. The whole system is as flawed as that of the Soviet Union if you ask me. The priorities are all screwed up.
Who damage the economy?
Scrat;1370287 wrote: That's only one part of the problem. What about the loss of purchasing power of the middle class? That's what kept consumerism going. There are not a lot of family wage jobs left, people are spooked and a lot of us don't even know if we will have a job a year from now. This depression (I'm calling a spade a spade here) is not going to be over soon and will most likely get worse. The whole system is as flawed as that of the Soviet Union if you ask me. The priorities are all screwed up.
Nothing wrong with the ideas behind the system rather the way it is implemented. In some ways the written constitution is a handicap as you end up arguing about it as if it is sacrosanct rather than a working agreement. Being British I am biased towards the make it up as you go along approach we have ended up with but that is our peculiarity.
Communism was never going to work from the word go most educated working class people saw through to it's basic flaw, dictatorship is inevitable but liberalism always wins out eventually but then loses the peace and it all starts all over again. The US might become a nasty right wing state for a generation or so but the right always screw things up.
Nothing wrong with the ideas behind the system rather the way it is implemented. In some ways the written constitution is a handicap as you end up arguing about it as if it is sacrosanct rather than a working agreement. Being British I am biased towards the make it up as you go along approach we have ended up with but that is our peculiarity.
Communism was never going to work from the word go most educated working class people saw through to it's basic flaw, dictatorship is inevitable but liberalism always wins out eventually but then loses the peace and it all starts all over again. The US might become a nasty right wing state for a generation or so but the right always screw things up.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Who damage the economy?
katsung47;1370251 wrote: Who damage the economy?
When Clinton left the W.H. the Federal benchmark interest rate was 6.5%. In Bush's term, the rate drammatically dropped in 2001. Then to the bottom of 1% in 2003 and 2004. It's the low interest rate that pushes up the economy. You could see the result from income tax revenue chart that the Federal income tax started going up from 2003, 2004, but it also created a big bubble - the housing bubble. That bubble broke out in 2007, (You could see it's the peak of income tax revenue). It also caused the financial crisis next year.(2008)
Real estate industry is an important factor of GDP. The housing bubble is still hurting the economy right now. Even now they low the interest rate to nearly zero, they can't recover the housing industry. (Because of piled up fore-closured houses from that bubble)
It's evident that Bush created the housing bubble that damaged the US economy. That bubble is still there, continuely erode the economy. Might be your desire to go to war every 20 years or so and prop up the Israeli military when you owe China billions.
Sorry.... Just saying.
When Clinton left the W.H. the Federal benchmark interest rate was 6.5%. In Bush's term, the rate drammatically dropped in 2001. Then to the bottom of 1% in 2003 and 2004. It's the low interest rate that pushes up the economy. You could see the result from income tax revenue chart that the Federal income tax started going up from 2003, 2004, but it also created a big bubble - the housing bubble. That bubble broke out in 2007, (You could see it's the peak of income tax revenue). It also caused the financial crisis next year.(2008)
Real estate industry is an important factor of GDP. The housing bubble is still hurting the economy right now. Even now they low the interest rate to nearly zero, they can't recover the housing industry. (Because of piled up fore-closured houses from that bubble)
It's evident that Bush created the housing bubble that damaged the US economy. That bubble is still there, continuely erode the economy. Might be your desire to go to war every 20 years or so and prop up the Israeli military when you owe China billions.
Sorry.... Just saying.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Who damage the economy?
oscar;1370345 wrote: Might be your desire to go to war every 20 years or so and prop up the Israeli military when you owe China billions.
Sorry.... Just saying.
Trillions, actually, but not so much, anymore...
China Has Divested 97 Percent of Its Holdings in U.S. Treasury Bills
By the way, I really don't think the majority of Americans want to, as you say, "go to war every 20 years or so and prop up the Israeli military." I personally think we should pull out of nearly everywhere and let them fight their own wars. I think most of the citizenry here would agree with that.
Sorry.... Just saying.
Trillions, actually, but not so much, anymore...
China Has Divested 97 Percent of Its Holdings in U.S. Treasury Bills
By the way, I really don't think the majority of Americans want to, as you say, "go to war every 20 years or so and prop up the Israeli military." I personally think we should pull out of nearly everywhere and let them fight their own wars. I think most of the citizenry here would agree with that.
Who damage the economy?
-kg-;1370749 wrote: Trillions, actually, but not so much, anymore...
China Has Divested 97 Percent of Its Holdings in U.S. Treasury Bills
By the way, I really don't think the majority of Americans want to, as you say, "go to war every 20 years or so and prop up the Israeli military." I personally think we should pull out of nearly everywhere and let them fight their own wars. I think most of the citizenry here would agree with that.
Then why does no one ever suggest cutting defence spending and bring the troops back home?
China Has Divested 97 Percent of Its Holdings in U.S. Treasury Bills
By the way, I really don't think the majority of Americans want to, as you say, "go to war every 20 years or so and prop up the Israeli military." I personally think we should pull out of nearly everywhere and let them fight their own wars. I think most of the citizenry here would agree with that.
Then why does no one ever suggest cutting defence spending and bring the troops back home?
Who damage the economy?
gmc;1370801 wrote: Then why does no one ever suggest cutting defence spending and bring the troops back home?
Oh, let me tell you...it has been suggested! Vociferously, and by many! Getting our government to listen is another matter. They know best, you know!
Oh, let me tell you...it has been suggested! Vociferously, and by many! Getting our government to listen is another matter. They know best, you know!
Who damage the economy?
-kg-;1370749 wrote: By the way, I really don't think the majority of Americans want to, as you say, "go to war every 20 years or so and prop up the Israeli military." I personally think we should pull out of nearly everywhere and let them fight their own wars. I think most of the citizenry here would agree with that.They "don't want to" yet a significant voter base vote for these right wing, war mongering, social degenerate, pro-rich monkeys with tiny brains.
Sure the majority might have expressed favoritism for a democrat over the past decade but I bet you all the cash in my house that the number of less votes is within $100 of my cash.
Sure the majority might have expressed favoritism for a democrat over the past decade but I bet you all the cash in my house that the number of less votes is within $100 of my cash.
Who damage the economy?
K.Snyder;1370866 wrote: They "don't want to" yet a significant voter base vote for these right wing, war mongering, social degenerate, pro-rich monkeys with tiny brains.
Sure the majority might have expressed favoritism for a democrat over the past decade but I bet you all the cash in my house that the number of less votes is within $100 of my cash.
Ok, I'm being exaggerate but you get my point! :yh_rotfl
Sure the majority might have expressed favoritism for a democrat over the past decade but I bet you all the cash in my house that the number of less votes is within $100 of my cash.
Ok, I'm being exaggerate but you get my point! :yh_rotfl
Who damage the economy?
gmc;1370801 wrote: Then why does no one ever suggest cutting defense spending and bring the troops back home?The horrible part of a democratic society being so close to even on voter base is that both parties can equally do as they please without fearing repercussion.
The thing is that republicans can get away with far worse atrocities because their voter base are massive tree swinging gorillas with an immense appetite for berries.
If you're unfortunate enough to pass one of them on the highway roll your window up because they've been known to throw their feces at passers by.
The thing is that republicans can get away with far worse atrocities because their voter base are massive tree swinging gorillas with an immense appetite for berries.
If you're unfortunate enough to pass one of them on the highway roll your window up because they've been known to throw their feces at passers by.
Who damage the economy?
K.Snyder;1370866 wrote: They "don't want to" yet a significant voter base vote for these right wing, war mongering, social degenerate, pro-rich monkeys with tiny brains.
Sure the majority might have expressed favoritism for a democrat over the past decade but I bet you all the cash in my house that the number of less votes is within $100 of my cash.
I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't care much for them. Don't be politic...tell us what you really think of them! :wah:
K.Snyder wrote: Ok, I'm being exaggerate but you get my point!
Perhaps just a tiny bit, but yes; I do get your point.
K.Snyder wrote: The thing is that republicans can get away with far worse atrocities because their voter base are massive tree swinging gorillas with an immense appetite for berries.
In my part of the country, we have a much more compact name for them. We call them "knuckle draggers."
K.Snyder wrote: If you're unfortunate enough to pass one of them on the highway roll your window up because they've been known to throw their feces at passers by.
They do tend to do that at times. It's kind of reminiscent of what their cousins in the zoo do.
Sure the majority might have expressed favoritism for a democrat over the past decade but I bet you all the cash in my house that the number of less votes is within $100 of my cash.
I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't care much for them. Don't be politic...tell us what you really think of them! :wah:
K.Snyder wrote: Ok, I'm being exaggerate but you get my point!
Perhaps just a tiny bit, but yes; I do get your point.
K.Snyder wrote: The thing is that republicans can get away with far worse atrocities because their voter base are massive tree swinging gorillas with an immense appetite for berries.
In my part of the country, we have a much more compact name for them. We call them "knuckle draggers."
K.Snyder wrote: If you're unfortunate enough to pass one of them on the highway roll your window up because they've been known to throw their feces at passers by.
They do tend to do that at times. It's kind of reminiscent of what their cousins in the zoo do.
Who damage the economy?
-kg-;1370877 wrote: They do tend to do that at times. It's kind of reminiscent of what their cousins in the zoo do.
Their cousins, or brothers, are much more civilized, it just appears not so because they're behind bars, just that what they do is activism. They feel oppressed then they get together and protest.
These gorillas just buy guns and kiss the ***** of the rich in the hopes they might get more than they're used to working for. Sad
Their cousins, or brothers, are much more civilized, it just appears not so because they're behind bars, just that what they do is activism. They feel oppressed then they get together and protest.
These gorillas just buy guns and kiss the ***** of the rich in the hopes they might get more than they're used to working for. Sad
Who damage the economy?
Nothing wrong with the ideas behind the system rather the way it is implemented. In some ways the written constitution is a handicap as you end up arguing about it as if it is sacrosanct rather than a working agreement. Being British I am biased towards the make it up as you go along approach we have ended up with but that is our peculiarity.
Communism was never going to work from the word go most educated working class people saw through to it's basic flaw, dictatorship is inevitable but liberalism always wins out eventually but then loses the peace and it all starts all over again. The US might become a nasty right wing state for a generation or so but the right always screw things up.
Agreed for the most part. It seems all tthe money we have here goes to the wrong things. There isn't brick and mortar going up with that money, it's being used to build overseas and gambled with in the stock market amongst other things. Why should somebody with 10 million start a new company when he can invest it with minimal risk and minimal tax? We have the wrong priorities.
I think also that we need to become more flexible in how we have look at forms of government. The Soviet Unions style of government (call it communism if you like) did work in many ways at certain times. It just doesn't work well all the time and needs to be changed to another in a timely fashion.
We need to stop looking at governmental systems as tools and not good and evil or better or worse.
Communism was never going to work from the word go most educated working class people saw through to it's basic flaw, dictatorship is inevitable but liberalism always wins out eventually but then loses the peace and it all starts all over again. The US might become a nasty right wing state for a generation or so but the right always screw things up.
Agreed for the most part. It seems all tthe money we have here goes to the wrong things. There isn't brick and mortar going up with that money, it's being used to build overseas and gambled with in the stock market amongst other things. Why should somebody with 10 million start a new company when he can invest it with minimal risk and minimal tax? We have the wrong priorities.
I think also that we need to become more flexible in how we have look at forms of government. The Soviet Unions style of government (call it communism if you like) did work in many ways at certain times. It just doesn't work well all the time and needs to be changed to another in a timely fashion.
We need to stop looking at governmental systems as tools and not good and evil or better or worse.
Who damage the economy?
Damage the house (2) (9/18/2011)
Blame others for the mess they had made.
Normally, president and his administration have annual revenue income, like a salary income for a family. He spends it for mortgage and other expenditure. They used to overspend the income, then they borrow the money by issuing bond.
But Bush damaged the house with a leaking roof and big hole on wall. (Housing bubble and financial crisis)
Obama not only has to pay monthly mortgage, but also must change the roof and repair the wall. That repair cost is much more than the normal monthly mortgage. The income remains the same. (salary unchanged or decreased) Expense increase drammatically. (save the firms too big to fall, help the unemployed people, help the drowned home owners....) That become a huge increase of national debt. Who should be responsible for that repair money?
Damage the house is easy. To repair it cost much. Republicans attacked Obama for the mess their own president (Bush) had made.
The fact is Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton, he left a deficit for Obama. Worse, he left a big financial crisis to Obama. Now they accuse Obama because he spend a lot of money to repair the roof. You know, to repair a roof costs more than to pay monthly mortgage.
Blame others for the mess they had made.
Normally, president and his administration have annual revenue income, like a salary income for a family. He spends it for mortgage and other expenditure. They used to overspend the income, then they borrow the money by issuing bond.
But Bush damaged the house with a leaking roof and big hole on wall. (Housing bubble and financial crisis)
Obama not only has to pay monthly mortgage, but also must change the roof and repair the wall. That repair cost is much more than the normal monthly mortgage. The income remains the same. (salary unchanged or decreased) Expense increase drammatically. (save the firms too big to fall, help the unemployed people, help the drowned home owners....) That become a huge increase of national debt. Who should be responsible for that repair money?
Damage the house is easy. To repair it cost much. Republicans attacked Obama for the mess their own president (Bush) had made.
The fact is Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton, he left a deficit for Obama. Worse, he left a big financial crisis to Obama. Now they accuse Obama because he spend a lot of money to repair the roof. You know, to repair a roof costs more than to pay monthly mortgage.
Who damage the economy?
3. Bush’s legacy is still hurting economy (10/24/2011)
Some people say that after three years, Obama can’t blame Bush on economy failure any more. But the housing crisis still hurts economy and looks like will continue to damage the economy for several years. The problem he left for this country is huge and long-lasting.
The main expense is to bail out the firms too big to fail, especially the mortgage giant Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The program to help unemployed, incentive to promote car sale and house sale, program to help the home owners whose house value now are underwater. Here is the real expense, that's the real hole you try to avoid of. Three years after sub-prime loan crisis, the roof is still leaking. Here is the some recent "leaking" result:
Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid
WASHINGTON -- Mortgage buyer Fannie Mae reported a loss of $8.7 billion for the January-March quarter, and asked for an additional $8.5 billion in federal aid.
Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Seek $3.1 Billion Amid Improved Earnings
QBy Lorraine Woellert - Feb 24, 2011 9:01 PM PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-earnings.html
Fannie Mae needs another $5.1 billion in aid as more loans sour
.Date: Friday, August 5, 2011,
http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...1-billion.html
Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan
9/12/11
Bank of America stock was up 2 cents at $7 at midday. The stock has lost half its value this year, largely over problems related to poorly-written mortgages it acquired with its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp. The bank faces lawsuits from investors and regulators over the sales of mortgage-backed securities that lost value after the housing boom collapsed.
Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan (VIDEO)
Three years after the break-off of the housing bubble, it still hurts economy and causes unemployment.
Some people say that after three years, Obama can’t blame Bush on economy failure any more. But the housing crisis still hurts economy and looks like will continue to damage the economy for several years. The problem he left for this country is huge and long-lasting.
The main expense is to bail out the firms too big to fail, especially the mortgage giant Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The program to help unemployed, incentive to promote car sale and house sale, program to help the home owners whose house value now are underwater. Here is the real expense, that's the real hole you try to avoid of. Three years after sub-prime loan crisis, the roof is still leaking. Here is the some recent "leaking" result:
Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid
WASHINGTON -- Mortgage buyer Fannie Mae reported a loss of $8.7 billion for the January-March quarter, and asked for an additional $8.5 billion in federal aid.
Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Seek $3.1 Billion Amid Improved Earnings
QBy Lorraine Woellert - Feb 24, 2011 9:01 PM PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-earnings.html
Fannie Mae needs another $5.1 billion in aid as more loans sour
.Date: Friday, August 5, 2011,
http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...1-billion.html
Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan
9/12/11
Bank of America stock was up 2 cents at $7 at midday. The stock has lost half its value this year, largely over problems related to poorly-written mortgages it acquired with its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp. The bank faces lawsuits from investors and regulators over the sales of mortgage-backed securities that lost value after the housing boom collapsed.
Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan (VIDEO)
Three years after the break-off of the housing bubble, it still hurts economy and causes unemployment.
Who damage the economy?
4. How Bush blew up the Housing bubble.
Here is a Federal bench interest rate in Bush's term.
you can see how the interest rate dropped to the bottom from 6% to 1% in his first year administration. That low interest rate created a housing bubble. Bush boasted in his administration, America developed an ownership society. The fast growing up bubble without any restriction was finally boken up in 2007, caused the financial crisis in next year. It is still hurting the economy and likely will continue for years.
End of the ‘Ownership Society’
Oct 10, 2008
Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system,
So Much for Bush's 'Ownership Society' - The Daily Beast
One thing else you can see from that interest rate chart. Clinton left his a nice interest rate tool to control the economy. The interest rate was 6%. With that interest rate tool, Bush did push up a economy. But he didn't regulate the economy, loosen the bridle of housing loan for his homeowners' society, that caused today's foreclosure problem. What did he leave for Obama? The Federal interest rate was below 1% which left little space for obama to operate. Without that tool, Obama had to borrow money, or do QE (quantitative easing) to push the economy.
Clinton left for Bush a surplus budget and a nice financial tool. What has Obama got from Bush?
Here is a Federal bench interest rate in Bush's term.
you can see how the interest rate dropped to the bottom from 6% to 1% in his first year administration. That low interest rate created a housing bubble. Bush boasted in his administration, America developed an ownership society. The fast growing up bubble without any restriction was finally boken up in 2007, caused the financial crisis in next year. It is still hurting the economy and likely will continue for years.
End of the ‘Ownership Society’
Oct 10, 2008
Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system,
So Much for Bush's 'Ownership Society' - The Daily Beast
One thing else you can see from that interest rate chart. Clinton left his a nice interest rate tool to control the economy. The interest rate was 6%. With that interest rate tool, Bush did push up a economy. But he didn't regulate the economy, loosen the bridle of housing loan for his homeowners' society, that caused today's foreclosure problem. What did he leave for Obama? The Federal interest rate was below 1% which left little space for obama to operate. Without that tool, Obama had to borrow money, or do QE (quantitative easing) to push the economy.
Clinton left for Bush a surplus budget and a nice financial tool. What has Obama got from Bush?
Who damage the economy?
The tax cut law was proposed and carried out by former President Bush. It is proved being a failed policy. In Bush's eight years term, the national debt raised from 6 trillian to 12 trillian. His tax cut law contributes big in debt increasing. Yet, when Obama wanted to recover the tax rate on rich people, the law makers resisted. It proves they are now working for a little group of rich people not for the majority of Americans.
Here is a confession from Greenspan:
Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts
By Michael Gawenda, Herald Correspondent in Washington
March 17, 2005
The chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has admitted he made a mistake in 2001 when he defended President George Bush's tax cuts, which led to the turnaround of a large budget surplus at the end of the Clinton presidency to a budget deficit this year of more than $US400 billion ($506 billion).
Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts - World - www.smh.com.au
Yet, when Obama proposed to cancel that tax cut law to save US from debt increasing, he is facing the opposition from the Republican.
Here is a confession from Greenspan:
Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts
By Michael Gawenda, Herald Correspondent in Washington
March 17, 2005
The chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has admitted he made a mistake in 2001 when he defended President George Bush's tax cuts, which led to the turnaround of a large budget surplus at the end of the Clinton presidency to a budget deficit this year of more than $US400 billion ($506 billion).
Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts - World - www.smh.com.au
Yet, when Obama proposed to cancel that tax cut law to save US from debt increasing, he is facing the opposition from the Republican.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who damage the economy?
If you are finished with your "It's Bush's Fault" masturbation, remember that in the USA the President is not King. Congress makes the laws. Congress budgets the money. No one man can do so much damage. Barney Frank is as much to blame, if not more.
Who damage the economy?
Accountable;1377434 wrote: If you are finished with your "It's Bush's Fault" masturbation, remember that in the USA the President is not King. Congress makes the laws. Congress budgets the money. No one man can do so much damage. Barney Frank is as much to blame, if not more.
I wish you tell the people who blame Obama for the economy failure. I just explain it in same way they used. Bush here may represent the Republican's policy. I think he is a puppet who just nodded on everything his master told him to do.
I wish you tell the people who blame Obama for the economy failure. I just explain it in same way they used. Bush here may represent the Republican's policy. I think he is a puppet who just nodded on everything his master told him to do.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who damage the economy?
katsung47;1378793 wrote: I wish you tell the people who blame Obama for the economy failure. I just explain it in same way they used. Bush here may represent the Republican's policy. I think he is a puppet who just nodded on everything his master told him to do.The verb is "was". Bush was a puppet ... years ago. We have a new puppet now.
Who damage the economy?
Thanks for correction. I agree Obama is a new puppet. However, it's still not right to blame new puppet with the mess created by the old puppet.
-------
Bush increased the national debt not only with his “Tax cut law”, but also with his two Mid-east wars. The war cost is another heavy burden to the US tax payers.
U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting
By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK | Wed Jun 29, 2011
Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion (622 billion pounds) price tag for America's wars.
Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.
The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (Home | Costs of War)
U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters
-------
Bush increased the national debt not only with his “Tax cut law”, but also with his two Mid-east wars. The war cost is another heavy burden to the US tax payers.
U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting
By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK | Wed Jun 29, 2011
Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion (622 billion pounds) price tag for America's wars.
Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.
The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (Home | Costs of War)
U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who damage the economy?
katsung47;1379944 wrote: Thanks for correction. I agree Obama is a new puppet. However, it's still not right to blame new puppet with the mess created by the old puppet.
It's unproductive to harp on the past when the problem is still present.
It's unproductive to harp on the past when the problem is still present.