US$3.3 trillion dollar for war. Where is it circulating now?

Good question.

According to classic economics, higher Government expenditure, ceteris paribus, leads to higher Gross Domestic Product (since GDP equals Consumption + Investment + Government expenditure + Net Exports).

George W. Bush addressed the issue during an interview with Ann Curry on the Today Show.

"ANN CURRY: Some Americans believe that they feel they’re carrying the burden because of this economy.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah, well—

ANN CURRY: The economy, they say, is suffering because of this war.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I don’t agree with that.

ANN CURRY: You don’t agree with that? It has nothing to do with the economy, the war, the spending on the war?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I don’t think so. I think, actually, the spending on the war might help with jobs.

ANN CURRY: Oh, yeah?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah, because we’re buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy is down because we built too many houses."

What President Bush didn't say is that the 3 trillion dollars amount is money that US didn't has! US had to borrow this amount. Government expenditure for war didn't create new jobs: it creates new borrowed money.

Because the saving rate is zero, that means that we have to finance the war by borrowing abroad. So China is financing America's war. The US is now operating at such a deficit, in fact, that it doesn't have the money to bail out its own banks. When Merrill Lynch and Citibank had a problem, it was sovereign funds from abroad that bailed them out. And we had to give up a lot of shares of our ownership. So the largest shareowners in Citibank now are in the Middle East. This creates a precedent of dependence, and whether we become dependent on Middle East oil money, or Chinese reserves - it's that dependency that people ought to worry about. Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes wrote a whole book about the issue.

The main problem is not only that we borrowed this amount, but that the money spent on armaments is money poured down the drain, because military government spending will not be translated into higher growth. Far better to invest in education, infrastructure, research, health, and reap the rewards in the long term.

Conclusion: we owe 3 trillion dollars to China and others (in fact, we owe more, due to interest). We owe money that we don't have. We owe money that we will not have. We have a skyrocketing deficit and some guys out there earning huge amount of money through this deficit, while food stamps are at all time high.

I hope this helps

Well i suppose the money has paid the troops out there,

compensation for families who have lost . training, weapons, buildings there are loads of diffrent things.

i bet there is even a million dollars in the bush administration back pocket

In Bush's pockets after his "friends" get their cut.