The dollar cost of war

[Topaz]

A report out says its cost $525,000 to have one soldier in Afg, yearly, which we have 2850 now. 250Mil. just the starting point for operations and maintenance alone. It seems fighting war is costing more and more and its no wonder Russia went broke because of it and I'm just wondering how long can Canada but more importantly the US can hold on with these costs? http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Afghan+cost+passes+soldier/2423127/story.html

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Until the banks quit giving them money?

Edited January 9, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Smallc]

I'm just wondering how long can Canada but more importantly the US can hold on with these costs?

Canadians? I'm guessing until about the middle of 2011.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Smallc

[eyeball]

Until the banks quit giving them money?

Or until we quit giving the banks money?

[Shady]

250Mil.

So now you've resorted to "worrying" about $250 million dollar expenditures in a $240 billion dollar budget? Pathetic. Especially since this $250 million dollar cost expires in a year, which has already been stated by another poster. I guess you're all out of real ammunition eh? Pun intended.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Or until we quit giving the banks money?

To stop giving the banks money? As in dump fractional reserve banking and actually make the banks live up to the intent of central banking? That is asking a lot. It would however serve us well to do this because we could eliminate the national debt and convert a lot more banking revenue into federal revenue streams very nicely.

[eyeball]

To stop giving the banks money? As in dump fractional reserve banking and actually make the banks live up to the intent of central banking? That is asking a lot. It would however serve us well to do this because we could eliminate the national debt and convert a lot more banking revenue into federal revenue streams very nicely.

Well, I don't think I'd be any happier with this if it still resulted in the government spending money on military aggression abroad.

I'll settle for bankruptcy if that's the case.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, I don't think I'd be any happier with this if it still resulted in the government spending money on military aggression abroad.

I'll settle for bankruptcy if that's the case.

The banks won't allow us to go bankrupt! They wouldn't get their money from the feds then. What would the government do with all the left over over taxed dollars we pay then, if we don't give them to the banks for bogus loans.?

[wyly]

getting my calculator out unless I've misunderstood or I'm doing something wrong(both possible) those numbers don't add up...2850 x $525,000...$1,496,250,000

to get to equal 250mil it reduced to $17,421 per year per man...

Edited January 9, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[eyeball]

The banks won't allow us to go bankrupt! They wouldn't get their money from the feds then. What would the government do with all the left over over taxed dollars we pay then, if we don't give them to the banks for bogus loans.?

They'd spend them in Afghanistan I guess.

[Wilber]

I'll settle for bankruptcy if that's the case.

I doubt it.

[eyeball]

I doubt it.

Why? I'm probably not going to have much choice if that's what happens. It's certainly happened and is happening to more powerful richer countries than our's.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Why? I'm probably not going to have much choice if that's what happens. It's certainly happened and is happening to more powerful richer countries than our's.

Yep!

[Martin Chriton]

Seems like a better investment then things we've done in the past for that kind of money, like the long gun registry.

But as others have pointed out that we're out within a year.

[Shady]

They wouldn't get their money from the feds then. What would the government do with all the left over over taxed dollars we pay then, if we don't give them to the banks for bogus loans.?

What money from the feds are you talking about? What bogus loans?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What money from the feds are you talking about? What bogus loans?

The national debt, the payments made by tax payers being transfered into private industry.

[Shady]

The national debt

The national debt is because banks are recieving funds from the government?

the payments made by tax payers being transfered into private industry.

Can you be more specific? I still have no idea what you're referring to.

[William Ashley]

Harper is a total crook and bank puppet - he gave over 50 billion to the banks already essentially for nothing... when he could of paid down 50 billion of the debt - which would of been pointless because he racked up a 50 billion deficit meaning --- he gave the banks 50 billion - and at the same time owes them 50 billion more meaning he lost 100 billion dollars when he could of been level -- make sense - this is a great economist eh?

King Harper, saviour of the banks, idiot of Canada.

Total government revenue of Canada in 2009 was about 300 billion - meaning he pissed away around 1/3rd of government funds availability on the banks. The Afghan war is around 1/50th of the total government spending WHICH IS substantial but nothing near the $150 Billion Cad allocated to buying land from the banks - which is a loss on property taxes and asset valuation (meaning less government earnings from the ownership of the land, since a private body needs to pay taxes the government sees no gain from paying taxes to itself - it actually sees a loss if paying it to a third teir government corporation.. meaning it has double effect on loss in government earnings)

The war will cost only around 1/10th to 1/5th of a years government revenue (which is substaintial with assosiate spending brings it to around 1/5th to 1/4th of a years revenue split over the course of a decade, which is substantial (essentially over the 10 year period it would be around 1/100th of government spending or 1% of all funds allocations - if deficits of 5-60 billion wern't being run each year)

While the Afghan war is costing Canada around 1% of Government Spending each year, the Canadian Mortgage buyout is costing tax payers about 15% of Government revenue each year. A far more serious issue. Both are not good policies, but of the two you tell me which one is more irresponsible?

Do take into account that in Ontario over 40% of funding is for health care - yet at the federal level 15% of spending is for buying mortgages? Is that responsible government?

Take into account federal revenues over the next few years are expected to decline, deficit spending is tabled to occur (although this may be an indication the cons will run a surplus based on their past record) - and interest on debt will drain more revenue from the funding available. The sad upside is that the government is already selling off its crown revenues such as athabasca oil sands and is slated to dismantle or sell other crown corps (Although tossing the idea around and doing it are two different things - see the note above). Is that government honestly acting in the interest of Canadians - what is Canada seeing other than a detiorating economy, and infrastructure programs - that should be done in a reasonable way regardless -"special spending" like road work in the summer? What are people actually seeing from that government? What is the legacy they are leaving Canadians other than a dramatically increased debt, a worsened economy? Lower GST that is now made up by a HST amalgamation so that they can tax you on more things to make up on taxing you for less on things?

You do the math - if you think HARPER has delivered less taxes think again, now you have the HST - harper sales tax. From 7% to 13% another great Harper democratic move that over 70% of the population of BC and Ontario opposes.

Note though that the 300 billion figure is actually about 237 billion - so you can adjust what was said accounting for 63 billion less in revenue. So that 15% FIGURE IS ACTUALLY 26%... meaning 1 in 4 tax dollars and other revenue went to buying land Canada already ownes... isn't that messed up (word used started with f) So get this Canada is spending 2600% more on buying land in Canada it already ownes more than the cost of the war in Afghanistan!!! Isn't that messed up. Federal revenue under harper also dropped by 15 Billion dollars in 2009 more than the direct war costs of Afghanistan for the decade (not taking into account indirect costs)

Income tax earnings have increased - how are there lower taxes when the government is taking more in.. and the unemployment rate has increased from 6.5% to 8.5% under the cons? Why are Canadians giving 1 in 4 of their tax dollars to the Banks, for land they already own?

In a mad world it makes more sense to give 1 in 4 tax dollars to take over a country that they didn't own.... you do the math and think about it?

There has got to be a few Canada can take over for less than the 50 billion a year harper is paying the banks? That is like 10 Nimitz aircraft carriers!!

10 of these puppies for what he is paying to buy land Canada already ownes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier

I bet we could make a few Banana republics piss themselves with that fire power!

Edited January 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The national debt is because banks are recieving funds from the government?

Can you be more specific? I still have no idea what you're referring to.

No the national debt is because the government borrowed more money than it had. The government then adds to this existing debt the cost of borrowing the money in the first place. A nice little circle jerk, the government is always either borrowing money from the banks or paying it back. Meanwhile the central bank doesn't really lend money to the other banks, and has no control over the realistic monetary policy supposedly designed by the government. What we have is a debt based currency not an asset based one. What we have is a travesty, and few see it that way. God bless the system of capitalism that has made us all wage slaves to work to cover a level of taxation imposed upon us to service a debt created by a government not smart enough to manage its own fiscal affairs in a manner that benefits its citizens.

Wake up and smell the coffee ....