The Cost of War, Unnoticed: Iraq Set to Become Nation's Second Most Costly War

[BurtWorm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701582.html?nav=rss_politics


Why Iraq and Afghanistan Haven't Squeezed the Average American's Wallet

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 8, 2007; Page D01

The global war on terror, as President Bush calls the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and related military operations, is about to become the second-most-expensive conflict in U.S. history, after World War II.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress has approved more than $609 billion for the wars, a figure likely to stand as lawmakers rework their latest spending bill in response to a Bush veto. Requests for $145 billion more await congressional action and would raise the cost in inflation-adjusted dollars beyond the cost of the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

RELATED INFORMATION
Earlier Expenses

Cost, in 2007 dollars

American Revolution

$4 billion

War of 1812

$1 billion

Mexican War

$2 billion

Civil War*

$81 billion

Spanish-American War

$7 billion

World War I

$364 billion

* Includes Union and Confederate costs.

SOURCE: CRS

But the United States is vastly richer than it was in those days, and the nation's wealth now dwarfs the price of war, economists said. Last year, spending in Iraq amounted to less than 1 percent of the total economy -- about as much as Americans spent shopping online and less than half what they spent at Wal-Mart. Total defense spending is 4 percent of gross domestic product, the figure that measures the nation's economic output. In contrast, defense spending ate up 14 percent of GDP at the height of the Korean War and 9 percent during the Vietnam War.

And this time, the war bill is going directly on the nation's credit card. Unlike his predecessors, Bush is financing a major conflict without raising taxes or making significant cuts in domestic programs. Instead, he has cut taxes and run up the national debt. The result, economists said, is a war that has barely dented the average American's pocketbook and caused few reverberations in the broader economy.

"This war is easier to manage because it's a very small portion of GDP compared to the past," said Robert D. Hormats, a managing director at Goldman Sachs and a former Reagan administration official who recently published a history of war financing. "Even the borrowing of money is relatively small compared to past wars, so the impact on the economy is relatively minor."

Like all debts, however, the bill for Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually come due. While it is unlikely to cause economic upheaval, such as the devastating inflation that followed the Vietnam War, economists foresee substantial increases in government spending to rebuild the nation's exhausted armed forces, care for its disabled veterans and cover rising interest payments....

[rodeodance]

1. Will the Wh press core bring this up??

[Lasher]

2. Don't think so.

Can't annoy the administration. Might lose that seat near the front.


http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

[Rydz777]

3. Great chart. It clearly answers the question - "Which is the party

of fiscal responsibility?" How appropriate that the color for the two Bush and the Reagan Presidencies is red.

[Lasher]

4. Thanks.

I post it here every now and then. Zfacts is a pretty cool site. You should check it out.

http://zfacts.com/

Edit: BTW, here is an excellent article that also makes it clear that the party of fiscal responsibility is clearly Democrats, not Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html