The Cost of War - $752 Billion

The country IS going to divide into three. Even Petreus thinks so (he just won;'t tell anyone officially). So what we have for US forces is essentially what we have in Bosnia, a PERMANENT troop presence to keep the faction apart. And in the case of Iraq, to also keep an eye on Iran with and to project force and influence into the Caspian-Aral sea natural resource district.

it will not divide into three parts. Turkey and Iran will not allow the kurds a homeland - simple as that...
 
I'm just curious. I know for a fact the USMC deployed perdiem budget was $10M annually prior to the invasion. That's just the meals rate. That doesn't take into account operations and maintenance, manpower and materiel.

Just that $10M alone adds up to $120M to babysit Saddam. Compared to the other expenditures mentioned, it's a drop in the bucket.

Wonder what the total bill was for babysitting Saddam from 91-03, and what it would be if we STILL were babysitting him ....:eusa_whistle:
 
Of course America can afford the wars. The problem is that there is no will to pay for it.
So... those that claim we cannot afford it are lying. Right?

The cost of the war is not $107 billion this year. It is $188 billion.
$752B in 7 years = $107B per year.

The recklessness and intellectual dishonesty of the Bush administration...
Speaking of recklessness and intellectual dishonesty:

The deficit for this calendar year will be around $400 billion, maybe $500 billion.
FY2007 deficit was $162B.
FY2008 deficit currently projected at $245B

The recklessness and intellectual dishonesty of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress on fiscal matters and the wars is disgraceful.
The huge majority of federal spending (and thus, the huge majority of the reason for any deficits) is off-budget entitlelemt spending -- spending that happens regardless of and without any regard for available revenue.

How do you suggest the Bush administration deal with that?
 
So... those that claim we cannot afford it are lying. Right?

Are they "lying?" Probably to the same extent that Republicans are "lying" when they say you reduce the deficit better in today's world by cutting taxes rather than raising them.

But of course America can afford it. Its a matter of will. The government's take in the economy was much higher during WWII. Of course, taxes went up during WWII, but raising taxes for any reason is anathema to the evangelical ideologues in the GOP.

$752B in 7 years = $107B per year.

Those are known as "sunk costs." What matters are the costs going forward. And the costs going forward ain't $107 billion per year.

Speaking of recklessness and intellectual dishonesty

FY2007 deficit was $162B.
FY2008 deficit currently projected at $245B

Here is the CBO baseline estimate.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8935/01-24-Senate_Testimony.shtml

That number is already $100 billion higher than what the CBO was predicting in the summer of last year. Why? Because the economy is slowing and probably going into a recession. If we go into a recession, that $245 billion is going to look like a fairy-tale.

The huge majority of federal spending (and thus, the huge majority of the reason for any deficits) is off-budget entitlelemt spending -- spending that happens regardless of and without any regard for available revenue.

How do you suggest the Bush administration deal with that?

This is wrong.

The huge majority of spending is not off books. The huge majority of liabilities is off book. Liabilities are future obligations. Today's spending is on the books.

How do I expect them to deal with it? Change the laws that obligate spending on social security or medicare, or cut spending elsewhere, or raise taxes. Bush and the Republican Congress did none of those.
 
Are they "lying?" Probably...
Let me know when you go after them to the same degree you go after the Republicans.

Those are known as "sunk costs." What matters are the costs going forward....
Not in a discussion about how much the war HAS cost.
Anythng else -- like forward projections -- is just a guess.

This is wrong.
The huge majority of spending is not off books.
I didnt say it was off-books, I sait it was off budget. Entitlement spending doesnt go thru the budget process.

The spending is accounted for in the books, but the amount spent is not budgeted -- its spent because the law says it must be spent, regarless of available revenue. This spending accounts for almost 60% of all federal spending; its --increase-- each year rivals the yearly cost of the wars.

How do I expect them to deal with it? Change the laws that obligate spending on social security or medicare, or cut spending elsewhere, or raise taxes.
And so, when the Democratic Congress/President doesn't do it, you will...?
Ignore the issue.

Bush and the Republican Congress did none of those.
And how do you suppse they were gong to do this, given the political realities of today?
 
Let me know when you go after them to the same degree you go after the Republicans.

As an ex-Republican, when the Democrats display the same amount of gross incompetence, I will.

What bugs me isn't that the Republicans screw up, its this idiotic notion that you can cut taxes and not create deficits, and if you do, it doesn't matter anyways.

At least the Democrats are honest when they say they're going to tax and spend. They're not rationalizing a tax-your-children and spend policy by saying "tax revenue went up" therefore tax cuts worked when the deficit has been growing faster.

The spending is accounted for in the books, but the amount spent is not budgeted -- its spent because the law says it must be spent, regarless of available revenue. This spending accounts for almost 60% of all federal spending; its --increase-- each year rivals the yearly cost of the wars.

And how do you suppse they were gong to do this, given the political realities of today?

You said

The huge majority of federal spending (and thus, the huge majority of the reason for any deficits) is off-budget entitlelemt spending -- spending that happens regardless of and without any regard for available revenue.

How do you suggest the Bush administration deal with that?

Its disingenuous to argue that it is because of spending while cutting taxes and saying you can't do anything about spending. If you can't cut spending because the majority of spending is program spending, as you say, don't cut taxes. Simple as that. Otherwise, all you are doing is increasing the taxes on your children.

Its like buying a house with a teaser-rate ARM while the rest of your income goes to living expenses, then, when the rate resets, asking what spending can you possibly cut because all your discretionary income goes to food and living expenses? If you are complaining about your mortgage payments and you can't make the higher payment, why did you buy something you couldn't afford? Live within your means.
 
As an ex-Republican, when the Democrats display the same amount of gross incompetence, I will.

What bugs me isn't that the Republicans screw up, its this idiotic notion that you can cut taxes and not create deficits, and if you do, it doesn't matter anyways.

At least the Democrats are honest when they say they're going to tax and spend. They're not rationalizing a tax-your-children and spend policy by saying "tax revenue went up" therefore tax cuts worked when the deficit has been growing faster.



You said



Its disingenuous to argue that it is because of spending while cutting taxes and saying you can't do anything about spending. If you can't cut spending because the majority of spending is program spending, as you say, don't cut taxes. Simple as that. Otherwise, all you are doing is increasing the taxes on your children.

Its like buying a house with a teaser-rate ARM while the rest of your income goes to living expenses, then, when the rate resets, asking what spending can you possibly cut because all your discretionary income goes to food and living expenses? If you are complaining about your mortgage payments and you can't make the higher payment, why did you buy something you couldn't afford? Live within your means.

What's on the books 680 billion dollars in social spending....not including social securtiy...that's how we balance the budget.........I'm not suggesting that we cut it completely out, but we need to make deep cuts in social spending.
 
What's on the books 680 billion dollars in social spending....not including social securtiy...that's how we balance the budget.........I'm not suggesting that we cut it completely out, but we need to make deep cuts in social spending.

And get out of Iraq as soon as possible, while being aware of the long term pontential of a reoccurance if we leave to soon.
 
As an ex-Republican, when the Democrats display the same amount of gross incompetence, I will.
I wont hold my breath.

What bugs me isn't that the Republicans screw up, its this idiotic notion that you can cut taxes and not create deficits,
Revenue and spending are seprate issues. Raising/cutting revenue in no way necessarily creates deficts/surplusses.

At least the Democrats are honest when they say they're going to tax and spend.
Its the ONLY time they're honest...

And, you didnt asnwer my question:
How do you suppse the Bush administration was gong to cut entitlement spending, as you suggest, given the political realities of today?
 
And, you didnt asnwer my question:
How do you suppse the Bush administration was gong to cut entitlement spending, as you suggest, given the political realities of today?

The political realities of 2002-2006 were that the Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. They could have changed the law. They did not. Instead, they cut taxes without cutting spending. That is fine counter-cyclical policy. It is not when you come out of a recession. They had their chance. They controlled everything and they chose to act irresponsibly. If you are not willing to cut spending, don't cut taxes and blame it on the excess spending you chose not to cut.
 
The political realities of 2002-2006 were that the Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress.
You're far to smart for me to think you really believe that your statement, above, describes the ENTIRE political reality.
Try again.

How do you suppse the Bush administration was gong to cut entitlement spending, as you suggest, given the political realities of today?
 
You're far to smart for me to think you really believe that your statement, above, describes the ENTIRE political reality.
Try again.

How do you suppse the Bush administration was gong to cut entitlement spending, as you suggest, given the political realities of today?

He can't today.

But he cut taxes in 2002-2006. He didn't cut spending though. That's why its a weak argument to complain about spending when you are cutting taxes.

This is very simple - if it is politically impossible to cut spending don't cut taxes!
 
With the exception of a slight decrease in 2004, to $74 billion, funding has increased steadily each year, to a total of $165 billion for 2007.

165 Billion a year? Not enough to get exited about...

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77


2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html


3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spe nt for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are
caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0 604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report: < FONT face="Times New Roman" color=blue size=4>http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period." http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ".
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whooping .
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR

especially if 338 Billion a year for Mexicans don't bother you....
 
As an ex-Republican, when the Democrats display the same amount of gross incompetence, I will.

What bugs me isn't that the Republicans screw up, its this idiotic notion that you can cut taxes and not create deficits, and if you do, it doesn't matter anyways.

At least the Democrats are honest when they say they're going to tax and spend. They're not rationalizing a tax-your-children and spend policy by saying "tax revenue went up" therefore tax cuts worked when the deficit has been growing faster.



You said



Its disingenuous to argue that it is because of spending while cutting taxes and saying you can't do anything about spending. If you can't cut spending because the majority of spending is program spending, as you say, don't cut taxes. Simple as that. Otherwise, all you are doing is increasing the taxes on your children.

Its like buying a house with a teaser-rate ARM while the rest of your income goes to living expenses, then, when the rate resets, asking what spending can you possibly cut because all your discretionary income goes to food and living expenses? If you are complaining about your mortgage payments and you can't make the higher payment, why did you buy something you couldn't afford? Live within your means.

How are you not a Ron Paul supporter?
 
Yes the top 50% pays 97% of the taxes in this country. Here's the proof...

http://money.aol.com/kiplingers/tax/canvas3/_a/how-do-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer/20061211141809990001

No, actually the middle class and high income wage earners right now carry all the dead weight in the lower class, acts as an anchor. Keeping our country from really taking off.

As far as your war comment, past wars and the current wars has generated income for the government. Not saying we should go to war to make money but it is true.

State programs are subsidized the federal government.

You're missing my point. If you argue that the higher wage earners are "carrying the dead weight" of the lower classes, the same logic must also be applied to the "middle class". The very rich are "carrying the dead weight" of the middle and upper middle class. Look at the figures - the top 20% pay more than twice as much as the 40-80% bracket! So they must be dead wood as well right?

Wars do not make money for the Government - they make debt! Wars enrich some individuals and run up debt for everyone.

The military produces "security", which does not feed anyone.
 
World War II resulted in alot of money being for the U.S. government. Americans lived the best they'd ever lived since the country declared independence. I'm not arguing that many of our wars cost money and do not earn money. But you can't generlize. World War II stimulated the economy. But the circumstances were entirely different because the people behind the war.

Wars start costing more money when the country's citizens do not support the war effort. Case made with Vietnam and our current wars. In the 40s, everyone assisted in the war effort, stimulating the economy. Now everyone uses more resources and doesn't care that we're at war, so the government is forced to supply itself and spend money.

This has nothing to do with the topic really, but my point was that you can't generalize and say that all wars put the government into debt, because after WWII we had huge surplus.
 

Forum List

Back
Top