|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
$4 billion a month!
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
$4 billion a month!
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
$4 billion a month!
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
$4 billion a month!
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
$4 billion a month!
"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? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
$4 billion a month!
"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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
$4 billion a month!
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: |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
$4 billion a month!
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
$4 billion a month!
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA's Finances in Disarray; $565 Billion in Adjustments | Don Corleone | Space Shuttle | 8 | May 18th 04 03:19 PM |
NASA Moon-Mars Price Tag at $229 Billion, not $1 Trillion | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 36 | May 5th 04 09:18 AM |
1 billion pounds of US dollars + 1 billion rubles=2 billion pounds | Lynndel Humphreys | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 29th 03 07:01 PM |
Cost of launch and laws of physics | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 235 | August 30th 03 10:20 PM |
Only 33 billion for a space colony?? Thats only 15 B-2's! | Tony Rusi | Policy | 17 | July 15th 03 08:40 PM |