Cost of 13 years of war: $1.6 trillion

[Toro]

"Before inauguration. Senator Obama voted for the budgets he would later blame on Bush, and for the TARP bailout. After just two months of TARP, the Bush administration said it was done -- crisis averted. In fact, President Bush was done after using about $270 billion of the $350 B that was authorized by Congress. But as a courtesy to the incoming president, Bush would request the second $350B from Congress if President-Elect Obama asked for it.

President-Elect Obama asked for it, and he got it."

Except that he didn't spend it. Only $431 billion was ever spent, including the original amount under Bush. Given that the net cost to the Treasury was $24 billion after all disbursements back to the government, TARP actually was in a surplus under Obama and was a net positive to the Treasury during his time in office.

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Am I right in saying that TARP was a complete success? Do you attribute that brilliant success to Bush or to Obama? I know the banks paid the money back, but I am a little confused (as usual). I was under the impression that TARP was a program that bailed out the banks, so the money was not 'spent' but was loaned by the treasury at interest. If the cost was a net $24 billion, how can you call that a surplus? That would seem to be a loss of $24 billion and a net negative.

The efficacy of TARP is another discussion. My argument is that the budget passed prior to Obama being elected is not his responsibility, other than what he passed after he was sworn in. That is convention. The first trillion dollar deficit was on Bush. The next three thereafter were on Obama.

The flow of TARP funds looked like this

Bush
Spent $270 billion
Received $0
Deficit $270 billion

Obama
Spent $161 billion
Received $407 billion
Surplus $246

Total
Spent $431 billion
Received $407 billion
Deficit $24 billion.

TARP ran a deficit but under Obama, TARP ran a surplus.

What you are saying is the interest on the money Bush loaned was paid back when Obama was in office, therefore Obama gets credit for all of the interest. Is that correct?
Since Bush loaned the majority of the money, he should get credit for the majority of the interest paid back IMO.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

The interest on the loans was something like 4%, and the duration wasn't much more than a couple of years. Interest income back to the government wasn't large, something like $30 billion. So maybe $20 billion of that can be attributed to Bush. TARP still ran a surplus under Obama.

The only relevance of this, however, is to show that TARP didn't contribute to the deficit under Obama. $10 billion here or there doesn't make much of a difference when there are 12 zeros in the number.

 

[TooTall]

"Before inauguration. Senator Obama voted for the budgets he would later blame on Bush, and for the TARP bailout. After just two months of TARP, the Bush administration said it was done -- crisis averted. In fact, President Bush was done after using about $270 billion of the $350 B that was authorized by Congress. But as a courtesy to the incoming president, Bush would request the second $350B from Congress if President-Elect Obama asked for it.

President-Elect Obama asked for it, and he got it."

Except that he didn't spend it. Only $431 billion was ever spent, including the original amount under Bush. Given that the net cost to the Treasury was $24 billion after all disbursements back to the government, TARP actually was in a surplus under Obama and was a net positive to the Treasury during his time in office.

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Am I right in saying that TARP was a complete success? Do you attribute that brilliant success to Bush or to Obama? I know the banks paid the money back, but I am a little confused (as usual). I was under the impression that TARP was a program that bailed out the banks, so the money was not 'spent' but was loaned by the treasury at interest. If the cost was a net $24 billion, how can you call that a surplus? That would seem to be a loss of $24 billion and a net negative.

The efficacy of TARP is another discussion. My argument is that the budget passed prior to Obama being elected is not his responsibility, other than what he passed after he was sworn in. That is convention. The first trillion dollar deficit was on Bush. The next three thereafter were on Obama.

The flow of TARP funds looked like this

Bush
Spent $270 billion
Received $0
Deficit $270 billion

Obama
Spent $161 billion
Received $407 billion
Surplus $246

Total
Spent $431 billion
Received $407 billion
Deficit $24 billion.

TARP ran a deficit but under Obama, TARP ran a surplus.

What you are saying is the interest on the money Bush loaned was paid back when Obama was in office, therefore Obama gets credit for all of the interest. Is that correct?
Since Bush loaned the majority of the money, he should get credit for the majority of the interest paid back IMO.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

The interest on the loans was something like 4%, and the duration wasn't much more than a couple of years. Interest income back to the government wasn't large, something like $30 billion. So maybe $20 billion of that can be attributed to Bush. TARP still ran a surplus under Obama.

The only relevance of this, however, is to show that TARP didn't contribute to the deficit under Obama. $10 billion here or there doesn't make much of a difference when there are 12 zeros in the number.

Some day you will have to explain to me how a loss of $24 billion is a net gain.

 

[Toro]

Except that he didn't spend it. Only $431 billion was ever spent, including the original amount under Bush. Given that the net cost to the Treasury was $24 billion after all disbursements back to the government, TARP actually was in a surplus under Obama and was a net positive to the Treasury during his time in office.

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Am I right in saying that TARP was a complete success? Do you attribute that brilliant success to Bush or to Obama? I know the banks paid the money back, but I am a little confused (as usual). I was under the impression that TARP was a program that bailed out the banks, so the money was not 'spent' but was loaned by the treasury at interest. If the cost was a net $24 billion, how can you call that a surplus? That would seem to be a loss of $24 billion and a net negative.

The efficacy of TARP is another discussion. My argument is that the budget passed prior to Obama being elected is not his responsibility, other than what he passed after he was sworn in. That is convention. The first trillion dollar deficit was on Bush. The next three thereafter were on Obama.

The flow of TARP funds looked like this

Bush
Spent $270 billion
Received $0
Deficit $270 billion

Obama
Spent $161 billion
Received $407 billion
Surplus $246

Total
Spent $431 billion
Received $407 billion
Deficit $24 billion.

TARP ran a deficit but under Obama, TARP ran a surplus.

What you are saying is the interest on the money Bush loaned was paid back when Obama was in office, therefore Obama gets credit for all of the interest. Is that correct?
Since Bush loaned the majority of the money, he should get credit for the majority of the interest paid back IMO.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

The interest on the loans was something like 4%, and the duration wasn't much more than a couple of years. Interest income back to the government wasn't large, something like $30 billion. So maybe $20 billion of that can be attributed to Bush. TARP still ran a surplus under Obama.

The only relevance of this, however, is to show that TARP didn't contribute to the deficit under Obama. $10 billion here or there doesn't make much of a difference when there are 12 zeros in the number.

Some day you will have to explain to me how a loss of $24 billion is a net gain.

It's not. I didn't say it was.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

"Thirteen years of war have cost the United States roughly $1.6 trillion.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the government has spent the money on military operations, base support, weapons maintenance, training of Afghan and Iraq security forces, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans’ healthcare, according to a recently released report by the Congressional Research Service tracking expenses through September.

The money was distributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom for Afghanistan, Operation Noble Eagle and other war-designated funding not directly died to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, according to the report.

Nearly half of the money spent, $815 billion, went toward the Iraq War, the report said.

About 92 percent of the expenses over the past 13 years came from the Department of Defense.Though U.S. troop levels in the Middle East, especially in Afghanistan, have been on a steady decline, the war funds request for fiscal 2015 remains at $73.5 billion, including $58.1 billion for Afghanistan.

Notably missing from the totals is the request to cover expenses for Operation Inherent Resolve, the airstrikes that began in late August against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

“There are some indications that the [Defense Department's fiscal 2015] war funding request may be more than is needed in light of [2014's] experience when expenses for returning troops and equipment have proven to be lower and the pace faster than anticipated,” the report said, referring to the cost of the airstrikes against the Islamic State and the recent announcement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that roughly 1,000 groups may remain in Afghanistan until spring 2015."

Cost of 13 years of war 1.6 trillion WashingtonExaminer.com

SO... One obama/Democrat Annual Deficit?

Wow... who would have bet (besides me...) that executing a world war for nearly 15 years would cost a FRACTION (~ 1/6th) of what it costs to simply allow the Left to Control the US Government for say... 6 years?

Huh.

The W.E. is being a bit....conservative in the numbers. Thank Bush and THE DICK Cheney.

Over 350,000 Killed by Violence, $4.4 Trillion Spent and Obligated

• The US federal price tag for the Iraq war — including an estimate for veterans' medical and disability costs into the future — is about $2.2 trillion dollars. The cost for both Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan is going to be close to $4.4 trillion, not including future interest costs on borrowing for the wars. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet.
• Home Costs of War

 

[rdean]

That's why when right wingers write these threads, they show such an astounding ignorance. Simply the cost of tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life and the cost of taking care of them decades into the future will be way more than a measly trillion. In fact, as medicine becomes ever more complicated and expensive, it's unknown how much it will cost this country. Unless Republicans get into office across the board and simply take away soldiers medical benefits. You know they would have no problem with doing that. They are Republicans. That's what they do.

Each Injured US Soldier Will End Up Costing 2 Million On Average - Business Insider

We have obama care now, you know free insurance, so the cost of taking care of wounded soldiers is taken care of, right?

Obamacare is not free insurance. Free is the Republican insurance of "let him die".

"him" ?

Are you a sexist.

We'd like to see all liberals go away.

Imagine this country without liberals. It would be a third world banana republic in constant revolt. The normal lifespan would be about 40 years.It would be a kind of Christian Taliban where gays are driven underground or killed if caught and women probably wouldn't have the vote. It would be a polluted cesspool.

You know these things would all be true. In fact, it would probably still be an English colony.

 

[rdean]

"Thirteen years of war have cost the United States roughly $1.6 trillion.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the government has spent the money on military operations, base support, weapons maintenance, training of Afghan and Iraq security forces, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans’ healthcare, according to a recently released report by the Congressional Research Service tracking expenses through September.

The money was distributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom for Afghanistan, Operation Noble Eagle and other war-designated funding not directly died to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, according to the report.

Nearly half of the money spent, $815 billion, went toward the Iraq War, the report said.

About 92 percent of the expenses over the past 13 years came from the Department of Defense.Though U.S. troop levels in the Middle East, especially in Afghanistan, have been on a steady decline, the war funds request for fiscal 2015 remains at $73.5 billion, including $58.1 billion for Afghanistan.

Notably missing from the totals is the request to cover expenses for Operation Inherent Resolve, the airstrikes that began in late August against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

“There are some indications that the [Defense Department's fiscal 2015] war funding request may be more than is needed in light of [2014's] experience when expenses for returning troops and equipment have proven to be lower and the pace faster than anticipated,” the report said, referring to the cost of the airstrikes against the Islamic State and the recent announcement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that roughly 1,000 groups may remain in Afghanistan until spring 2015."

Cost of 13 years of war 1.6 trillion WashingtonExaminer.com

SO... One obama/Democrat Annual Deficit?

Wow... who would have bet (besides me...) that executing a world war for nearly 15 years would cost a FRACTION (~ 1/6th) of what it costs to simply allow the Left to Control the US Government for say... 6 years?

Huh.

The W.E. is being a bit....conservative in the numbers. Thank Bush and THE DICK Cheney.

Over 350,000 Killed by Violence, $4.4 Trillion Spent and Obligated

• The US federal price tag for the Iraq war — including an estimate for veterans' medical and disability costs into the future — is about $2.2 trillion dollars. The cost for both Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan is going to be close to $4.4 trillion, not including future interest costs on borrowing for the wars. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet.
• Home Costs of War

And still no mention of the many tens of thousands of young Americans maimed in Iraq. That will cost many more trillions into the future.

 

[Listening]

That's why when right wingers write these threads, they show such an astounding ignorance. Simply the cost of tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life and the cost of taking care of them decades into the future will be way more than a measly trillion. In fact, as medicine becomes ever more complicated and expensive, it's unknown how much it will cost this country. Unless Republicans get into office across the board and simply take away soldiers medical benefits. You know they would have no problem with doing that. They are Republicans. That's what they do.

Each Injured US Soldier Will End Up Costing 2 Million On Average - Business Insider

We have obama care now, you know free insurance, so the cost of taking care of wounded soldiers is taken care of, right?

Obamacare is not free insurance. Free is the Republican insurance of "let him die".

"him" ?

Are you a sexist.

We'd like to see all liberals go away.

Imagine this country without liberals. It would be a third world banana republic in constant revolt. The normal lifespan would be about 40 years.It would be a kind of Christian Taliban where gays are driven underground or killed if caught and women probably wouldn't have the vote. It would be a polluted cesspool.

You know these things would all be true. In fact, it would probably still be an English colony.

Oh, I imagine it all the time.

But, you know what....I live in areas where there are not a lot of liberals and the quality of life is quite good.

You live in Liberalland Chicago where they kill more people in a weekend than we do in a year (and the per capita murder rate is much higher than where I live).

You are so fucking stupid it is amazing. You really should get some help, but in your mind it is the rest of the world that is screwed up.

Think about it (if you can think).

 

[thanatos144]

That's why when right wingers write these threads, they show such an astounding ignorance. Simply the cost of tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life and the cost of taking care of them decades into the future will be way more than a measly trillion. In fact, as medicine becomes ever more complicated and expensive, it's unknown how much it will cost this country. Unless Republicans get into office across the board and simply take away soldiers medical benefits. You know they would have no problem with doing that. They are Republicans. That's what they do.

Each Injured US Soldier Will End Up Costing 2 Million On Average - Business Insider

We have obama care now, you know free insurance, so the cost of taking care of wounded soldiers is taken care of, right?

Obamacare is not free insurance. Free is the Republican insurance of "let him die".

"him" ?

Are you a sexist.

We'd like to see all liberals go away.

Imagine this country without liberals. It would be a third world banana republic in constant revolt. The normal lifespan would be about 40 years.It would be a kind of Christian Taliban where gays are driven underground or killed if caught and women probably wouldn't have the vote. It would be a polluted cesspool.

You know these things would all be true. In fact, it would probably still be an English colony.

Oh, I imagine it all the time.

But, you know what....I live in areas where there are not a lot of liberals and the quality of life is quite good.

You live in Liberalland Chicago where they kill more people in a weekend than we do in a year (and the per capita murder rate is much higher than where I live).

You are so fucking stupid it is amazing. You really should get some help, but in your mind it is the rest of the world that is screwed up.

Think about it (if you can think).

You have to understand those are American lives they don't really matter to him

 

[georgephillip]

They didn't die for nothing

Here's what they died for:
"Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

"It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

"Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms."

Antonia Juhasz

"From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq.

"So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

 

[thanatos144]

They didn't die for nothing

Here's what they died for:
"Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

"It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

"Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms."

Antonia Juhasz

"From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq.

"So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000."

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN.com

What a bunch o bullshit lies.

 

[Dot Com]

"Forcing"? Yeah, that's right, the GD Democrats held a gun to the head of all those CEO's, especially at Wells Fargo and Bank of America, forcing them not only to loan to persons who they knew would not be able to pay the balloon payment in five years, but also forced them to bundle up these loans and sell them to others. Those damn Democrats sure did burn a whole bunch of people.

Funny thing is, the banksters and insurance brokers and real estate brokers did fine, and continued to do fine during the Great Recession of 2007 - 2009. It was only those dumb working stiffs who lost. But it was all there fault for voting for Democrats.

I sure wished everyone was as dishonest or stupid as thanatos144, then we could get beyond all these petty partisan squabbles and learn how to live in a Plutocracy.

^ that

 

[thanatos144]

Liberals and most Ron paul libertarians love america running like whipped dogs becauae they hate the usa

 

[Wyatt earp]

They didn't die for nothing

Here's what they died for:
"Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

"It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

"Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms."

Antonia Juhasz

"From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq.

"So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000."

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN.com

Still want to used that myth? China gets like 80 percent of iraqs oil

 

[georgephillip]

What a bunch o bullshit lies.

Like WMDs that posed an existential threat to America or Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda?

"'Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that,' said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007.

"Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

"Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: 'People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are.'"

Only devout slaves deny the obvious.

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN.com

 

[georgephillip]

China gets like 80 percent of iraqs oil

From western oil companies and not from the Iraqi state.
"For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit.

"And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

"These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998,Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.' Today it does.
And it's selling to China.
Why do so many shit-for-brains slaves confuse their welfare with Chevron's profits?

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN.com

 

[Wyatt earp]

China National Petroleum has rapidly expanded its presence in the Iraqi oil business. CNPC is now operating four projects in the as-yet-untouched southern part of the country, making it the single biggest foreign investor in Iraq.

Last year, CNPC produced 299 million barrels from Iraq, almost one-third of its overseas output. Meanwhile, Chinese state enterprises, refiner Sinopec and offshore player CNOOC, have both made big investments in Iraq’s oil industry

Iraq Crisis Threatens Chinese Oil Investments - Businessweek

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberals and most Ron paul libertarians love america running like whipped dogs becauae they hate the usa

Thanks so much for more evidence your are a liar and dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[thanatos144]

Liberals and most Ron paul libertarians love america running like whipped dogs becauae they hate the usa

Thanks so much for more evidence your are a liar and dumb as a box of rocks.

You may wish I was a liar but I know for a fact that you are nothing more than a liberal that hates america borderline a traitor my eyes

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

"Thirteen years of war have cost the United States roughly $1.6 trillion.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the government has spent the money on military operations, base support, weapons maintenance, training of Afghan and Iraq security forces, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans’ healthcare, according to a recently released report by the Congressional Research Service tracking expenses through September.

The money was distributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom for Afghanistan, Operation Noble Eagle and other war-designated funding not directly died to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, according to the report.

Nearly half of the money spent, $815 billion, went toward the Iraq War, the report said.

About 92 percent of the expenses over the past 13 years came from the Department of Defense.Though U.S. troop levels in the Middle East, especially in Afghanistan, have been on a steady decline, the war funds request for fiscal 2015 remains at $73.5 billion, including $58.1 billion for Afghanistan.

Notably missing from the totals is the request to cover expenses for Operation Inherent Resolve, the airstrikes that began in late August against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

“There are some indications that the [Defense Department's fiscal 2015] war funding request may be more than is needed in light of [2014's] experience when expenses for returning troops and equipment have proven to be lower and the pace faster than anticipated,” the report said, referring to the cost of the airstrikes against the Islamic State and the recent announcement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that roughly 1,000 groups may remain in Afghanistan until spring 2015."

Cost of 13 years of war 1.6 trillion WashingtonExaminer.com

SO... One obama/Democrat Annual Deficit?

Wow... who would have bet (besides me...) that executing a world war for nearly 15 years would cost a FRACTION (~ 1/6th) of what it costs to simply allow the Left to Control the US Government for say... 6 years?

Huh.

The W.E. is being a bit....conservative in the numbers. Thank Bush and THE DICK Cheney.

Over 350,000 Killed by Violence, $4.4 Trillion Spent and Obligated

• The US federal price tag for the Iraq war — including an estimate for veterans' medical and disability costs into the future — is about $2.2 trillion dollars. The cost for both Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan is going to be close to $4.4 trillion, not including future interest costs on borrowing for the wars. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet.
• Home Costs of War

And still no mention of the many tens of thousands of young Americans maimed in Iraq. That will cost many more trillions into the future.

You are so very right. I was very remiss in not adding that in.
Heaping insult to, literally, injury when a vet dies from his wounds. They are not considered to be killed in combat or in war.

Report: A Million Veterans Injured In Iraq, Afghanistan Wars
Report A Million Veterans Injured In Iraq Afghanistan Wars - Forbes

""""The International Business Times reported Friday that the Department of Veterans Affairs had stopped releasing the number of non-fatal casualties of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, thus concealing what the paper called a “grim milestone” of 1 million injuries.

All that can be said with any certainty is that as of last December more than 900,000 service men and women had been treated at Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics since returning from war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the monthly rate of new patients to these facilities as of the end of 2012 was around 10,000. Beyond that, the picture gets murky. In March, VA abruptly stopped releasing statistics on non-fatal war casualties to the public. However, experts say that there is no reason to suspect the monthly rate of new patients has changed…

VA stopped preparing and releasing these reports on health care use and disability claims involving the 2.6 million U.S. service members who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan without warning, claiming unspecified “security” reasons.""""

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Liberals and most Ron paul libertarians love america running like whipped dogs becauae they hate the usa

Thanks so much for more evidence your are a liar and dumb as a box of rocks.

You may wish I was a liar but I know for a fact that you are nothing more than a liberal that hates america borderline a traitor my eyes

How is that a fact? Please post proof, since some of us who are smarter than boxes of rocks insist upon corroborating evidence when someone makes such a claim.