Originally Posted by Bergermeister
Yep. No wonder the Republicans want to cut spending for everything but the Pentagon; their wars are a tad expensive. [3 to 4 times the cost of the Republican-loathed as money wasting Obamacare]
What, GW, did these wars achieve?
Over 4000 dead... more than on 9/11. Yep, a result of US government action.
An exhausted military with lots of damaged/destroyed equipment. (with a Chinese dragon starting to rear its head and a nutcase in North Korea who thinks nukes are arcade games).
A severely damaged image abroad.
The list goes on.
Oh, and please do not forget the innocent women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan who died by the thousands.
Washington increased military benefits in late 2001 as the country went to war, seeking to quickly bolster its talent pool and expand its ranks. Those decisions and the protracted nation-building efforts launched in both countries will generate expenses for years to come, Linda Bilmes, a public policy professor, wrote in the study released Thursday.
You aren't comparing apple with apples. This study estimates the lifetime costs of the war and for the benefits promised to the people who served in them.
So the 18 year old coming home from Afghanistan this year, when he wants a hip replacement when he is 75 years old to ease his pain, this study is counting that procedure as a cost of the war.
When you do the same thing for government entitlements not even the costs but the funding gap alone is over $200 TRILLION dollars.
Would it be nice to take some actions and deal with those $6 trillion in lifetime costs for those wars? Sure. Can we be honest and note that George Bush stopped being president in 2008 and folks like yourself won't point a finger where it belongs, at Democrats and Obama in 2013. Absolutely. Can we realize that anyone who refuses to address the $200+ trillion dollar gap because they want to point at someone and talk about a $6 trillion dollar cost isn't interested in real solutions? We can and do.