Iraq’s $79 billion surplus

[yesdachi]

Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.

The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.

In one comparison, the United States has spent $23.2 billion in the critical areas of security, oil, electricity and water since the 2003 invasion, the report said. But from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq has spent just $3.9 billion on similar services.

link

So what do you think, should the US get back some of the $48 billion they have spent rebuilding or should Iraq keep the money. They way oil prices are, Iraq is likely to see a similar surplus next year.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think that the goverments of the invasion (not just US) should cover the costs of rebuilding what they destroyed (as that seems fair to me... you brake it you pay) and that the money from Iraqi oil should cover building what they didn't have in the first place...

[ICantSpellDawg]

The US shouldn't get money back like that. The surplus should go toward programs that allow us to leave earlier.

[woad&fangs]

The US shouldn't be paid but that money should be spent. There is no excuse for having a surplus of cash when you're country is in flames.

[Tribesman]

oh stop
There was this bloke a while back , he saw this thing coming and as people wanted to change the funding bill from one that took this Iraqi revenue into account to one that didn't take it into account he had the notion of voting for the original then not voting for the change .
They called him a sandal or something in the line of beach footwear and really lambasted him for being such a Fraggle (oh sorry Kerry is not a member so can be called a Muppet for his views) .

So should the US get back some of the cash ?
No they went out of their way to ensure that they paid for the lot to the rapturous support of the American electorate (well the electorate whose vote counted)
You made the bed yourselves so don't complain about the ruffles in the sheets .

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think that it would be right to take payment from them. We spent a ton of money to get rid of Saddam, check the countryside for WMDS, give our military a much needed workout, and establish a democratic-republic in a hotbed of anti-american totalitarianism. We've accomplished 3 of the four; they should use that money to get back on their feet and that would be payment enough.

Mission accomplished.

[PanzerJaeger]

This would certainly help our ROI, but I agree with Tuff and Grizz.

Also, how exactly would we make them pay us back.. military force? Iraq is a "sovereign nation" and it is in our best interests that we appear to respect that.

[yesdachi]

So how much “rebuilding” should the US do on the taxpayer’s dime?

Shouldn’t they be paying for the rebuilding that is currently being done if they have the cash to do so?

[Navaros]

That's funny that this thread is quoting a $48 billion figure since tonight on an American newscast I saw a US politician, a retiring Republican IIRC, saying that the War on Iraq has cost the USA $600 billion in debt, none of which has been paid for. He said they should have implemented a War Tax collected from everyone to pay for the War on Iraq, like they did with the War on Vietnam (or so he claimed).

[OverKnight]

At least someone can run a budget surplus.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Maybe there's something to these Iraqi politicians after all.

[JR-]

I don't think that it would be right to take payment from them. We spent a ton of money to get rid of Saddam, check the countryside for WMDS, give our military a much needed workout, and establish a democratic-republic in a hotbed of anti-american totalitarianism. We've accomplished 3 of the four; they should use that money to get back on their feet and that would be payment enough.

Mission accomplished.

agreed.

[Ice]

Maybe there's something to these Iraqi politicians after all.

Lots of oil?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Lots of oil?

They also only use the money of other country's constituents. ;)

[yesdachi]

That's funny that this thread is quoting a $48 billion figure since tonight on an American newscast I saw a US politician, a retiring Republican IIRC, saying that the War on Iraq has cost the USA $600 billion in debt, none of which has been paid for. He said they should have implemented a War Tax collected from everyone to pay for the War on Iraq, like they did with the War on Vietnam (or so he claimed).

The $48 billion figure speaks of the rebuilding only.

If we were sitting better economically I think a war tax would be appropriate.

[Ice]

They also only use the money of other country's constituents. ;)

Ah i kind of missed what you meant.

Anyway, it's my view that we should be paying most of the money for this rebuilding effort. We invaded the country, we pay the price.

[yesdachi]

Ah i kind of missed what you meant.

Anyway, it's my view that we should be paying most of the money for this rebuilding effort. We invaded the country, we pay the price.

I don’t think I am seeing eye to eye with you on this one. We did make a mess for them (hopefully for the best in the long run) and do hold some responsibility to rebuild but I think our current goal in Iraq is to help them rise to a level where they can protect themselves and be independent from outside assistance. If they have the money, shouldn’t they be using it to build and rebuild?

You don’t let your cash strapped buddy buy you a new house when you have money in the bank to afford 10.