$4 billion a month!

(Christopher) :

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 02:47:37 -0000, Earl Colby Pottinger
wrote:

"Alan Erskine" :



http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/stor...raq-occupation

-mid.inp

That's how much Iraq is costing just the U.S. - almost enough for a new
manned Moon program every month.

Despicable!

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where are the Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Mr Bush?

Really? I checked the article and I notice that it did not say what the
cost
of the same people are when they are not deployed. Problem, if the
standby
costs are $2 billion a month for example then Iraq is not costing $4
billion,
it is costing $2 billion a month.

Stories like this are inflating the claimed costs, infact depending on the
standby costs the increase maybe a very large percentage.

Any idea what the real costs are?

63 American soldiers dead up to now. 63 families who will never see
their loved ones again, 63 mothers who will never see her son again...

I see that you are avoiding the question raised, the orginal post was about
the money, my question was about the money. Your response however is not
about has nothing to do about the money.

This is what is wrong with all your posts lately. You keep avoiding the
facts.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Alan Erskine" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"Alan Erskine" :




http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/stor...raq-occupation
-mid.inp

That's how much Iraq is costing just the U.S. - almost enough for a new
manned Moon program every month.

Despicable!

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where are the Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Mr Bush?

Really? I checked the article and I notice that it did not say what the
cost
of the same people are when they are not deployed. Problem, if the
standby
costs are $2 billion a month for example then Iraq is not costing $4
billion,
it is costing $2 billion a month.

A hint (in the article) is the bit that says "cannot sustain" or similar
words, beyond early next year.

Another hint (also in the article) is the bit that says that the U.S.
presence will have to be reduced to, what, 40,000 from the current 180,000.

Yet another hint (also in the article) is that the current force (might) be
replaced by reserves, but at a much reduced level.

How's that for starters?

Anyone can hint. Notice those people still keep on existing and still have
to be clothed, feeded, sheltered and paid. So money still has to be spent no
matter where they are. I want numbers, what is so hard to understand about
my question? Remember all the hints about failure of the US army before the
war started? Give me numbers, not hints. After all do you plan to get into
space using hints?

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Ralph Nesbitt" :

Well said.

It would indeed be interesting to see the total "Routine Standby Cost",
maint, training, live fire, etc, plus routine deployment transition costs
for the deployed units is.
Ralph Nesbitt

That is all I asked for. If it normally is $1 billion dollars a month then
Iraq is a big strain, requiring the budget to be increase 300%. But is on
the otherhand it is normally $3 billion a month then the budget only needs a
%33 increase.

Baseline numbers matter, leaving out the baseline in any enterprise is a
great way to confuse an issue. After all look at all the debates about the
costs of running the space shuttle. What you include in the baseline costs
swings the costs per flight as little as $60 million (we know that is not
true but you can make the numbers appear that way) to as high as $850 million
(where you blame every little thing on the shuttle.)

Does anyone know the BaseLine costs of the army units involved? Note: an
answer of no is fine, it's implying that you know without posting numbers
that I dislike.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message . au...
http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/stor...raq-occupation
-mid.inp

That's how much Iraq is costing just the U.S. - almost enough for a new
manned Moon program every month.


And it may get worse. The US military commander in Iraq has
finally admitted that he needs more troops for the job. Large
areas of Iraq, like the road between Baghdad and Jordan, have
reportedly slipped from his control.

"http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030904/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716"

Clearly, the simultaneous Southwest Asia/Middle East Wars are
both heating up and are going to squeeze NASA's budget. The
agency won't be able to afford upgrading shuttle for return
to flight while also developing OSP. One of these two things
will probably not happen. NASA might have to cut back on its
ISS contributions too.

Off topic - I think Afghanistan was/is necessary, but that
Iraq seems a wasteful diversion. Isn't it a bad idea to
divide your forces before a superior (in numbers) foe?
Custer had advantages in tactics, training, weapons, and
mobility, but they didn't amount to much before a swarm of
motivated Cheyenne/Sioux.

- Ed Kyle

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

Really? I checked the article and I notice that it did not say what the cost
of the same people are when they are not deployed. Problem, if the standby
costs are $2 billion a month for example then Iraq is not costing $4 billion,
it is costing $2 billion a month.

Stories like this are inflating the claimed costs, infact depending on the
standby costs the increase maybe a very large percentage.

Any idea what the real costs are?

Earl Colby Pottinger


From
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...e/Spending.asp

* The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2003 was $396.1 billion.
* The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2002 was $343.2 billion.


The difference of about 53 billion matches the 1 billion/week claim
fairly closely.

2000 was 288.8 billion.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
. au...

http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/stor...raq-occupation
-mid.inp
Off topic - I think Afghanistan was/is necessary, but that
Iraq seems a wasteful diversion. small snip

Agreed; Afghanistan was necessary and Iraq _is_ a waste of time, resources
and lives. To what end, freeing the people of Iraq when over a billion live
in China, another couple of hundred million live in dictatorships in other
parts of the world - some of which are at least as bad as Iraq?
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where are the Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Mr Bush?

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"Ralph Nesbitt" :

Well said.

It would indeed be interesting to see the total "Routine Standby Cost",
maint, training, live fire, etc, plus routine deployment transition
costs
for the deployed units is.
Ralph Nesbitt

That is all I asked for. If it normally is $1 billion dollars a month
then
Iraq is a big strain, requiring the budget to be increase 300%. But is on
the otherhand it is normally $3 billion a month then the budget only needs
a
%33 increase.

From http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...e/Spending.asp "The
U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2004 is $399.1 billion... This
was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000"

38% increase in four years.

And this: "The US military budget is more than six times larger than the
Russian budget, the second largest spender."

And this: "During his election campaign, President George Bush had promised
an an additional 45 billion dollars over nine years to the military budget.
Yet, that increase was seen in just the Fiscal Year 2003 request alone. This
large increase is attributed to the "War on Terror". "
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where are the Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Mr Bush?

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:34:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Bush has stimulated the economy by cutting taxes.
The stimulated economy generates extra income.
By taxing this extra income U.S. is enjoying
a net increase in tax revenue.

It is? Funny, the most recent GAO report is reporting a record deficit both
in absolute dollars and as I recall approaching it in % of the GNP.


It is. Same as during the Reagan years... a decrease in taxes led to an
increase in revenue.

No, a decrease in taxes would lead to a decrease in revenue. A
decrease in tax *rates* however...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Scott Lowther wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:


That's how much Iraq is costing just the U.S. - almost enough for a new
manned Moon program every month.


And about three seconds worth of failed social welfare programs.
Prioritise!


$1.33 billion/sec for social welfare programs. Okaaaay.

Here's a nice pie chart of FY 2001:
http://www.assmotax.org/Data/fedbud.php

I believe most of what you call "failed social welfare programs" comes
under "Income security" which totaled $228 billion. $48 billion of that
is Federal workers retirement and disability which I don't regard as
welfare. I believe $180 billion is what we spent on social welfare in 2001.

$180 billion is a very distant third behind 2001's military expense (310
billion subtracting military retirement etc.) and Debt service (356
billion).

I expect Military and Debt Service to surge even further ahead.

Bush cuts taxes and increases spending. He's taking the U.S. deeper into
credit card heaven. Here is a cartoon I made depicting this:
http://clowder.net/hop/etc./Bush.jpg

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:34:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Bush has stimulated the economy by cutting taxes.
The stimulated economy generates extra income.
By taxing this extra income U.S. is enjoying
a net increase in tax revenue.

It is? Funny, the most recent GAO report is reporting a record deficit both
in absolute dollars and as I recall approaching it in % of the GNP.


It is. Same as during the Reagan years... a decrease in taxes led to an
increase in revenue.

No, a decrease in taxes would lead to a decrease in revenue. A
decrease in tax *rates* however...

Thank you, Dr. Anal.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer

"Any statement by Edward Wright that starts with 'You seem to think
that...' is wrong. Always. It's a law of Usenet, like Godwin's."
- Jorge R. Frank, 11 Nov 2002