Over $1 Trillion in War Costs in 10 Years, Obama Withdraws Troops
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/economy/1347
Posted by Brittany Stepniak - Friday, June 24th, 2011 Of course war costs have contributed to the federal deficit. War's never going to be cheap. That being said, a lot of Americans argue that it is money well spent, as it is protecting our security. Many others make the same argument Obama has officially made:
"It is time to focus on nation-building here at home...the tide of war is receding."
By September 2012, 33,000 American troops have been ordered to be removed from Afghanistan. Following in Obama's footsteps, French President Nicolas Sarkozy also announced that his country would begin a troop withdrawal process.
Support for the war was losing steam in the U.S. and costs were getting too steep. The U.S. president made a promise to his people to cut spending costs of the federal government, and some citizens believe this is one step in that direction. On the other hand, the president is receiving oppostion and criticism from politicians and the general public, who disagree.
The differing reactions were only to be expected, but the bottom line is this: the president felt the cons of maintaining status quo with the war efforts and strategies were too risky. The pros of altering the situation outweighed the cons.
Support for the war was losing steam in the U.S. and costs were getting too steep. The U.S. president made a promise to his people to cut spending costs of the federal government, and some citizens believe this is one step in that direction. On the other hand, the president is receiving oppostion and criticism from politicians and the general public, who disagree.
The differing reactions were only to be expected, but the bottom line is this: the president felt the cons of maintaining status quo with the war efforts and strategies were too risky. The pros of altering the situation outweighed the cons.
...Or is this just a ploy to achieve a popularity boost before the upcoming election? Maybe, maybe not.
Either way you look at it, $1 tillion plus another $100 billion for intelligence and veteran disability payments in addition to 6,089 American lives is an expensive price to pay when there is so much re-structuring to be focused on within our own country.
In 2009, the government's yearly budget allotted $56.1 billion for operations in Afghanistan. This year, that price is more than double that; up $57.4 billion to $113.5 billion.
With those kind of cost spikes, speculators -including public officials- worry the planned withdrawals will not cut costs enough to make any real, stable improvements towards the federal deficit.
Either way you look at it, $1 tillion plus another $100 billion for intelligence and veteran disability payments in addition to 6,089 American lives is an expensive price to pay when there is so much re-structuring to be focused on within our own country.
In 2009, the government's yearly budget allotted $56.1 billion for operations in Afghanistan. This year, that price is more than double that; up $57.4 billion to $113.5 billion.
With those kind of cost spikes, speculators -including public officials- worry the planned withdrawals will not cut costs enough to make any real, stable improvements towards the federal deficit.
Aside from the uncertainty as to whether withdrawal will make a big financial impact, critics also fear for the future Afghanistan and Pakistan...Nuclear concerns won't leave when the troops come home.
Brittany Stepniak
What Happens When the Debt is Greater Than the Economy? We're About to Find Out.
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/finance/1267
Posted by Brittany Stepniak - Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 A U.S. Treasury report indicates that our country's debt will be greater than the size of our economy before the year's end. Last year, similar reports suggested that would not happen until 2014. But it is happening; three years earlier than anticipated.
Here's what's going on and what led us to this point (in a nut-shell):
The public debt to GDP ratio is projected to surpass 102 percent in 2011.
Today, the White House's GDP estimate for 2011 is $219 billion less than it was one year ago. If we view debt on that spectrum, as a percentage, it will always look higher because the numerical percentage is taken from a lower number.
Regardless of any misleading views of the statistics, the debt did grow quite a bit. And it did so for a few reasons.
First, the tax cut deal between the Republicans and President Obama last December greatly contributed to the debt crisis. The Congressional Budget Office claims that approximately $858 billion is expected to be tagged onto the deficits over the next ten years, with $410 billion of it being added to the deficit in 2011.
According to the Chicago Tribune:
The tax cut package extended all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for another two years, enacted a one-year Social Security tax holiday and reduced the estate tax.
Democrats and Republicans disagree on a lot, but both sides have indicated a desire to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent for at least the majority of Americans -- a costly proposition.
It's no secret, the GOP has made it perfectly clear that it will not use tax increases as a measure to raise the debt ceiling.
Dave Camp, lead tax writer in the House, is adamant that even the slightest increase in debt limit must co-exist with serious spending reductions and "real entitlement reforms."
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests reforming the tax code to bring down the debt.
U.S. National Debt Clock: Real Time Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests reforming the tax code to bring down the debt.
Is the US Worse Off Than Greece?
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/finance/1000
Posted by Adam Sharp - Monday, April 11th, 2011 Analysts in the US like to point out how bad Europe's debt problems are. What they don't often mention is that America's own problems are arguably even worse.
Chart by Sudden Debt, along with this commentary:Not fair to compare the US to Greece, you say? Correct, because the figure for Greece is for the general government, i.e. it includes all local and municipal budgets, whereas for the US it involves the federal government only.
In other words, the real picture is even worse than it looks in the graph.
DC-heavyweight James Baker recently weighed in on the issue:
"The United States of America, if we didn't have the dollar as the de facto reserve currency of the world, we'd be Greece," former Treasury Secretary James Baker told CNN Sunday. "I mean, we are broke, bankrupt. Really bankrupt."
The question is: How much time does the dollar's reserve-currency status buy America? And how much longer will the dollar remain the reserve currency, with Bernanke & co. printing like mad?
+44France to follow US out of Afghanistan
France is to follow the US in starting a gradual troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Nicolas Sarkozy has announced, in a move that could boost his popularity before a 2012 election.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy Photo: AFP/GETTY
Mr Sarkozy said troops sent for reinforcement would start returning in a time frame similar to the US force withdrawal. President Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States would pull out 33,000 troops by late 2012.
"Given the progress we have seen (in Afghanistan), France will begin a gradual withdrawal of reinforcement troops sent to Afghanistan, in a proportional manner and in a calendar comparable to the withdrawal of American reinforcements," Mr Sarkozy's office said after he spoke to Mr Obama by telephone.
France has about 4,000 troops in Afghanistan, and has seen 62 soldiers killed. It is due to start redeploying and handing over areas it controls to the Afghan military in 2011.
The office statement did not say how many troops would be moved initially, and Gerard Longuet, the defence minister, said details of the withdrawal would be kept quiet to avoid giving information to Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents.
"It will be significant for 2011 and, like the Americans, we will see this materialise in 2012," he told France Info radio.
French troops have been involved in the US- and Nato-led Afghanistan operation since 2001 and there is growing frustration in political circles with the long campaign.
Nearly 10 years after a Taliban government was toppled, foreign forces have been unable to deal a decisive blow to the resurgent Islamist militant group. The Afghan government remains weak and notoriously corrupt, and billions of dollars of foreign aid have yielded meagre results.
Mr Obama said he would withdraw 10,000 of his 100,000 troops from Afghanistan by the year's end, followed by another 23,000 by the end of the next US summer and a steady pullout of remaining troops after that.
its Jean-Dominique Merchet, a French military analyst said Mr Sarkozy's announcement suggested France could see 400 soldiers brought home by the end of the year and 1,300 by late 2012.
Mr Sarkozy is expected to say in the last few weeks of 2011 that he will run for a second term in the April 2012 election.
His troops decision could be a boost to his chances in what looks set to be a tough battle for reelection against a resurgent left, with the far right also eating into his support.
Afghanistan's Taliban Thursday dismissed news of US troop withdrawals as mere symbolism, vowing to fight on, but President Hamid Karzai said the move hastened his nation's ability to fend for itself.
Ordinary Afghans seemed split over US President Barack Obama's announcement, after a decade of war, to pull tens of thousands of troops out of Afghanistan and concentrate on "nation-building" in America instead.
Some Afghans hoped it would reduce violence in a country battered by years of fighting, while others thought the move could plunge their nation into more chaos as foreign combat forces target a full withdrawal in 2014.
Mr Karzai described Obama's decision as "a good step in their favour and in favour of Afghanistan".
But the Taliban, whose insurgency has worsened steadily since the Islamist movement was ousted from power in late 2001, said the move was only "symbolic".
Nearly 10 years after a Taliban government was toppled, foreign forces have been unable to deal a decisive blow to the resurgent Islamist militant group. The Afghan government remains weak and notoriously corrupt, and billions of dollars of foreign aid have yielded meagre results.
Mr Obama said he would withdraw 10,000 of his 100,000 troops from Afghanistan by the year's end, followed by another 23,000 by the end of the next US summer and a steady pullout of remaining troops after that.
its Jean-Dominique Merchet, a French military analyst said Mr Sarkozy's announcement suggested France could see 400 soldiers brought home by the end of the year and 1,300 by late 2012.
Mr Sarkozy is expected to say in the last few weeks of 2011 that he will run for a second term in the April 2012 election.
His troops decision could be a boost to his chances in what looks set to be a tough battle for reelection against a resurgent left, with the far right also eating into his support.
Afghanistan's Taliban Thursday dismissed news of US troop withdrawals as mere symbolism, vowing to fight on, but President Hamid Karzai said the move hastened his nation's ability to fend for itself.
Ordinary Afghans seemed split over US President Barack Obama's announcement, after a decade of war, to pull tens of thousands of troops out of Afghanistan and concentrate on "nation-building" in America instead.
Some Afghans hoped it would reduce violence in a country battered by years of fighting, while others thought the move could plunge their nation into more chaos as foreign combat forces target a full withdrawal in 2014.
Mr Karzai described Obama's decision as "a good step in their favour and in favour of Afghanistan".
But the Taliban, whose insurgency has worsened steadily since the Islamist movement was ousted from power in late 2001, said the move was only "symbolic".
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar