Originally projected to be at a cost of around $700 billion, (http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110920/exclusive-treasurys-tarp-aig-bailout-costs-fall-to-30-billion?mod=bb-budgeting) now down to around $30 billion, after the AIG returns are figured in.
PS: the Iraq War is at $704 billion in direct costs, and an estimated $2.4 trillion or more in total expenditures. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-9) Just, you know, for comparison's sake.
Why did we fund a war in Iraq? It seems expensive to me.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 05, 2010, 02:46:07 PM
Why did we fund a war in Iraq? It seems expensive to me.
I'm not sure. It's not like they attacked us or anything.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 05, 2010, 02:46:07 PM
Why did we fund a war in Iraq? It seems expensive to me.
The war was bad enough but not being allowed (PC) to use Iraqi oil to rebuild Iraq was a real budget buster.
The resulting $30 bln cost was Bush's fault. Can we garnish his pension check?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 05, 2010, 10:53:36 PM
The resulting $30 bln cost was Bush's fault. Can we garnish his pension check?
This whole Obama disaster is Bush's fault. If he had done a better job we wouldn't have had the "passion" vote.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 06, 2010, 07:21:13 AM
This whole Obama disaster is Bush's fault. If he had done a better job we wouldn't have had the "passion" vote.
It's England's fault. If they had treated us better in the 1700s, we wouldn't have had that revolution thing. And so on.....
Quote from: we vs us on October 05, 2010, 03:09:38 PM
I'm not sure. It's not like they attacked us or anything.
Forgot to mention earlier, sure wish we had Saddam H back. The world was a much better place with him around.
/sarcasm
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 06, 2010, 08:02:35 AM
Forgot to mention earlier, sure wish we had Saddam H back. The world was a much better place with him around.
/sarcasm
Not that I liked the dude or anything, but $2.4 trillion is a lot to spend to depose a run-of-the-mill dictator who had been effectively hobbled for a decade or more.
But we're getting off the subject, which is how much of a bargain $30 billion or so is if it keeps us out of the next Great Depression, and how relatively effective the Fed has been at managing the money that's gone out the door.
Color me impressed.
Quote from: we vs us on October 06, 2010, 08:23:41 AM
Not that I liked the dude or anything, but $2.4 trillion is a lot to spend to depose a run-of-the-mill dictator who had been effectively hobbled for a decade or more.
But we're getting off the subject, which is how much of a bargain $30 billion or so is if it keeps us out of the next Great Depression, and how relatively effective the Fed has been at managing the money that's gone out the door.
Color me impressed.
Ahem, quoting three year old
estimates from a Wiki article? Where's my cache of wet noodles?
"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]"
Okay, if debt service is that costly, WTH is the outrage over the current pace of borrowing, folks? We spent about $150 bln more in one year on the stimulus last year, and will have a $1.3 trillion deficit for FY 2010, following $160 bln and $458 bln, $1.4 tril in '07, '08, and '09. Iraq war costs were a small component of those deficits in the last few years.