Pass along a news tip by clicking HERE.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

The Cost Of The Iraq War To Ohio: About $15.7 Billion And Counting

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- The National Priorities Project has built a meter that is constantly counting the financial cost of the War in Iraq. The meter runs non-stop, and a few moments ago pegged Ohio's share of expenses at $15,690,248,670. Cincinnati's share was closing in on $420 million; Dayton, $154 million; Toledo, $344 million; Youngstown, $67 million.

Other Ohio cities are on the meter, too. It is worth watching the meter rise. And while you were reading this, the numbers have climbed.


  1. Wow! That's a bargain - at any price. Better that it's spent on national and global security instead of more useless social programs. When it gets into the multiple trillions wasted on keeping people poor - i.e. welfare programs - then I'll get concerned.

  2. Hi Joe C.

    Maybe we could build a ticker for all federal programs to see where the money goes.

    Man, you must be kidding when you say the that the war is a bargain -- that it was purchased at a discount, or low price.

    So Joe, is spending money on children's insurance a "useless social" program? Is spending money on veterans care, a "useless social" program?

    Or did you mean the war is a bargain in the bazaar sense; like the US was hustled out of its money in a bazaar?

  3. No, I mean I' rather spend $447 billion in preserving national security and transforming the Middle East for centuries than the $127 billion blown on Katrina; the trillions spent on various welfare programs that only kept people poor; and the $600 billion spent EACH YEAR on Medicare and Medicaid that could be used in the private sector to provide better and cheaper care for 80 million people.

    All S-CHIP did was REMOVE children from private insurance and put them on the dole. Now they want to expand and compound the effect.

  4. Hi Joe C. --

    So we -- the United States -- are transforming the Middle East for centuries?

    What is your proof of that?

    And what is your proof that the money was spent on national security. The guys who plotted to attack us are still at large, and their movement has become stronger. Perhaps we will become more secure if . . . There are a lot of ifs, aren't there?

  5. Was Europe (and the US) safer after WWII? We are just at the beginning (1942) of this war against Islamofascism. WWII took 4 years, this may take 10 or more. It would be done alot easier, faster, and cheaper if it weren't for half the Congress and 90% of Democrats and the Media giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Peace is not the absence of war. Europe could have been "peaceful" under Hitler - for a while - but would you want to live there? It took 70+ years to defeat communist expansionism - no thanks to the American Left.

    For as lousy as Bush has been since passing Medicare Part D, fifty years from now, Bush will be revered in the Middle East (like Reagan is in eastern Europe).

    So, can I prove things will be better? No. Just like in 1942, I wouldn't have been able to prove that Europe would be better off in 2007. And you can't prove it will be worse. Only time, money, and sacrifice will tell - just like in the forties. Only then we didn't have the American Left rooting for and helping the enemy, which won't be forgotten.

  6. Hi Joe C.

    This is Bill Sloat replying now. Actually, the Soviets dominated Eastern Europe after the end of World War II up until 1989 or so when the Warsaw Pact unravelled, the Berlin Wall fell and the states of the communist bloc broke away. A large piece of Europe unfortunately exchanged one brutal master named Hitler, for another named Stalin. World War II in Europe began in September 1939 -- the anniversary is coming tomorrow -- specifically to keep Poland as an independent state. It ended with a great victory over the Nazis, but Poland was not free at all. It wound up under complete Soviet domination.

    However, there was a Western Alliance created to oppose and contain the USSR, and it proved effective without firing a single shot. Remember, only Western Europe was free at the end of WWII, the rest was under an iron curtain, a phrase that Churchill coined.

    I do agree with out that it is proper to oppose totalataritian states. But I wonder: Does opposition have to mean a shooting war? Are their rational alternatives?

    Joe, both you and I know we never we ever went to war vs. the USSR, a truly reprehensible creation.

    And we never went to war against China, another state whose government in Beijing his truly reprehensible, Right now, you and I are probably typing and exchanging these comments computers and electric lines and keyboards built in China (or Vietnam), or have components manufactured in that Marxist state. Yet somehow we manage to get along, or coexist, with them even though by ideology they are dedicated to overthrowing our capitalist society.

    And, my friend, at this moment I think the American Left is far more uncomfortable with trade and consorting with China than the American Right and the American Middle.

  7. Bill, I'm well aware of the history.

    Sometimes the rational alternative IS war. We didn't need to go to a shooting war against the USSR, but we did have to against the Axis powers. The height of irrationality is to fight when you don't have to, or NOT to fight when it IS necessary.

    The Islamofascists are irrational beings as we have seen countless times. Decades of diplomacy and proxy interventionalism played out and got us suckerpunched and 3000 people killed. To continue a proven failed policy is just an invitation to escalation and more of the same - nip it in the bud so to speak. To expect a rational end by merely projecting rationality onto one who is wantonly irrational is foolish - and dangerous.

    The failure in this war was NOT that it WAS fought, but HOW it was fought. The first three weeks were perfect, but then we let the enemy (including the Left) get up, take a breather, and dictate the terms of the rest of the war up until the last couple of months.

    The anti-war, anti-America, anti-capitalist Leftists have enjoined with the national Democrats - their natural allies - to use this critical time to gain power. The Left would rather take over a weakened, defeated, humiliated US, than remain a minority in a burgeoning nation. They almost did it in the 70's, but were beaten back by Reagan and a growing conservative movement that won over the political middle. This time, however, there is no Reagan, just a solid and vocal pro-American exceptionalism base trying to bring the complacent and soft middle - which we created - back to its senses. We have the disadvantage, however, of having to contend against the Left's crumbling but still powerful Media hegemon and its vast sources of wealth - hard, soft, legal, and illegal.

    This war is as much cultural as it is military. Money is the one thing we have plenty of, and don't have to worry about. In the long run, I believe that history and future generations will see this liberation movement at home and abroad as a bargain.

  8. One last thing, since I doubt if I'll read any blogs before Monday. I know Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Germany and Italy didn't attack us in WWII, either. When I speak of the war, I mean the GWOT, of which Iraq is just one front - the second (Afghanistan was the first). There will be more to come - Iran and Syria - before it's over, although I suspect it won't be on such a wide scale. They will fall from within more than from without, then the dominos will fall - Palestine, Lebanon, and eventually Saudi Arabia.

    Patience is a virtue.

  9. Hi Joe --

    I think Germany was in an alliance with Japan and Italy. When Japan attacked, the Germans declared war. We responded with our own formal declaration.

    Have a great holiday.