Ah, memories. Not always pleasant, my friends.
From 2003:
The White House is downplaying published reports of an estimated $50 billion to $60 billion price tag for a war with Iraq, saying it is “impossible” to estimate the cost at this time.
White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that such a conflict could cost $50 billion to $60 billion — the price tag of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
But Trent Duffy, an OMB spokesman, said Daniels did not intend to imply in the Times interview that $50 billion to $60 billion was a hard White House estimate. […]
In September, Daniels disputed an estimate by Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey — who has since left the White House — that war with Iraq could cost $200 billion.
Daniels said he believes Lindsey’s estimate was “the upper end of a hypothetical,” Duffy said.
Congressional Democrats this past fall estimated the cost of a military attack against Iraq around $93 billion.
From 2005 predictions were a little less rosy:
Yet the costs for Pentagon operations are likely to pile up in years ahead. By 2010, war expenses might total $600 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Much depends on when — and how many — U.S. military personnel can be withdrawn from the Iraqi theater of operations.
These days, most estimates seem to agree that the expenses of fighting the war in Iraq, if they haven’t already hit $600 BILLION, they soon will. And that doesn’t include the long term costs of the war to our nation which some calculate will run into the TRILLIONS:
Last September in a phone interview, Ms. Bilmes estimated the war’s total price tag as easily exceeding $2 trillion. In a book published last month, she and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist from Columbia University, New York, estimated the total long-run cost at $3 trillion in 2007 valued dollars. If you add in Afghanistan and various costs to the economy, the sum reaches $4.95 trillion.
Useful information to remember when you hear this or that figure will solve the economic crisis. Because,, as we’ve found out the hard way over the last five years, the experts our government relies upon don’t exactly have a great track record on estimating the cost of such things.
One just can’t imagine that Bush is not getting a big laugh at all of the “socialist” programs Obama is proposing. Not just a pseudoliberal medical care proposal to cover everyone with a Corporate run medical insurance program, but putting people to work in a CCC type effort to save our infrastructure. This is actually Reagan-Bush liberalism, because there’s no money left in the federal budget to pay for these programs.
That’s just what Tip O’Neil said about the effect of Reagan budget deficits (fattening the National Debt and the interest to pay for it): Reagan was still controlling the country long after he left office, from California. Since Bush outdid Reagan in leaving the government, the people, in debt, there is every reason why he can laugh harder.
Anyone know the interest on the 12 trillion dollar National Debt?
damned good question…it gotta be big $’s since the interest expense for fy 2008 was $451,154,049,950.63……¡jezeus!…source: u.s.treasury.gov
and the debt just ballooned to $10+ trillion at the end of the fy. l doubt it’s simple as multiplying this number x 1.2 but it’s going to put a serious dent in what is and is not doable. additionally, with gdp contracting, tax revenues decreasing, etc., it’s going to be an even bigger piece of the pie than it is now.
the more economically inclined are going to have to opine further on this. it’s way out of my pay grade.
Funny.
Obama’s about to keep those same military experts on, as expected.
Hillary, Geithner, now Gates.
Strike three for progressives.
And how many Trillian will the economic melt-down and associated bail-outs eventually cost? Ask the experts who brought you the mess in the first place…
Actually, the GAO got the price tag in the right ballpark originally. Their estimate of a high end of $1.3 Trillion for non-reconstruction costs was at least in the ballpark. This was a pre-war, publicly published number, and a couple folks, myself included, tried to get it into the pre-war debate.
NO ONE, even the foil hat crowd, could ‘apprehend’ the sheer insanity of the number I guess, and so couldn’t integrate it into their model of the world and ended up just ignoring it/remaining in intimidated silence.
The idea that ‘no one could have predicted the breaching of the budget’ is a total farce. If any Congressperson claims to have been blindsided, then they are admitting impeachable incompetence or criminal deceit.
Throw the bums out!
Here’s a current report on cost:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf