The Cost of War - $752 Billion

[Warner]

Social spending was 680 billion last year....here's the proof...

http://www.federalbudget.com/

??????

You mean the "Health and Human Services" budget?

Two-Thirds of that is Medicare and Medicaid. Most of the rest of it is the NIH and the FDA. While these are "Social Programs", these are the essentials of what a Government is supposed to do right? (help take care of the elderly and ensure the public health)

And even so, it is substantially less than the military allocation, and about equal to service on the debt (which is mostly due to the War).

What are you suggesting? That we dump Medicare? (that people are forced to pay into) That we shut down the NIH (National Institute of Health)?

 

[Warner]

As I have said I am not here to debate the justification of the war....you can see that on "Bush lied thread"... What was Bush's motivation then, for going to war in Iraq?
When the top 50% wage earners in this country pay 97 % of the total federal income taxes, there is a problem. What are you suggesting, the top 50% wage earners or any other wage earner for that matter, should have to be forced to pay charity? Plus we all know the beautiful effectiveness of government anyway, as you admitted to in your last post. So we have these huge social beaucracies that are being ineffectively ran. That seems as though that is the definition of waste.
It seems as though you mistook my last statement, "employ our citizenary" as meaning I wanted the government to hire every person that was taking from social services. No, that's not what was meant. I meant that the government needs to provide an effective way of getting people off of social programs and into the working sector of society.
Socialism destroys the entreprenueral spirit of a nation because it takes success and penalizes it with higher taxes. Here's a link explaining the reasons Socialism is doomed to fail.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

The Federal Government has almost no "Welfare" programs. This is something done by the States, some more, some less. Like so many you seem to think this nation has a huge number of people on Federal Welfare - it doesn't. Actual "Welfare" from the Fed. government amounts to about 1-3% of the budget, depending on what you want to include in that category. Mostly, it's aid to the helpless (mentally retarded, cripples, etc...).

Specifically what items would you eliminate and how much would this really amount too? (check, you'll find its almost nothing)

Just for perspective, if you add up the cost of the military, the cost of the current War, and the cost of past wars, it makes up about 55% of the US Fed. budget.

As for the top 50% paying 97% of the Fed. Taxes....

Breaking the population down into quintles by income:

00-20%: income = ~3% taxes = ~1%
21-40%: income = ~9% taxes = ~5%
41-60%: income = ~15% taxes = ~10%
61-80%: income = ~23% taxes = ~17%
81-100%: income = ~50% taxes = ~66%

So it's actually something more along the lines of 91%, not 97%.

Your implication is that the bottom 40% is the problem. But look at it logically - for a moment lets just forget about the bottom 40%. By your logic the 41-80% are a bunch of slackers! So the "middle class" taxes should be at least doubled right?

???

 

[mattskramer]

As I have said I am not here to debate the justification of the war....you can see that on "Bush lied thread"... What was Bush's motivation then, for going to war in Iraq?
When the top 50% wage earners in this country pay 97 % of the total federal income taxes, there is a problem. What are you suggesting, the top 50% wage earners or any other wage earner for that matter, should have to be forced to pay charity? Plus we all know the beautiful effectiveness of government anyway, as you admitted to in your last post. So we have these huge social beaucracies that are being ineffectively ran. That seems as though that is the definition of waste.
It seems as though you mistook my last statement, "employ our citizenary" as meaning I wanted the government to hire every person that was taking from social services. No, that's not what was meant. I meant that the government needs to provide an effective way of getting people off of social programs and into the working sector of society.
Socialism destroys the entreprenueral spirit of a nation because it takes success and penalizes it with higher taxes. Here's a link explaining the reasons Socialism is doomed to fail.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

Capitalism or Socialism taken to the extreme is not good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_capitalism

 

[jreeves]

??????

You mean the "Health and Human Services" budget?

Two-Thirds of that is Medicare and Medicaid. Most of the rest of it is the NIH and the FDA. While these are "Social Programs", these are the essentials of what a Government is supposed to do right? (help take care of the elderly and ensure the public health)

And even so, it is substantially less than the military allocation, and about equal to service on the debt (which is mostly due to the War).

What are you suggesting? That we dump Medicare? (that people are forced to pay into) That we shut down the NIH (National Institute of Health)?

Medicare for one has a completely seperate funding than other social spending, hence why you have a medicare withholding on all it's own. Medicaid is a program for who can't afford to pay for medical care. That's Social spending to me. The FDA is an independent agency not affiliated with any of the cabinets in the executive branch, its not an extension of the Dept. of Health and Human Services.
The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense and income redistribution (The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher. Do you have "Compassion" for the lower income earners? (You may note that social spending is the largest item in our federal budget. (Anyone complaining about the run-up of the deficit, should note that almost all of it is going to social spending).---source www.federalbudget.com

 

[jreeves]

Medicare for one has a completely seperate funding than other social spending, hence why you have a medicare withholding on all it's own. Medicaid is a program for who can't afford to pay for medical care. That's Social spending to me. The FDA is an independent agency not affiliated with any of the cabinets in the executive branch, its not an extension of the Dept. of Health and Human Services.
The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense and income redistribution (The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher. Do you have "Compassion" for the lower income earners? (You may note that social spending is the largest item in our federal budget. (Anyone complaining about the run-up of the deficit, should note that almost all of it is going to social spending).---source www.federalbudget.com

Meant to take out the comment about FDA....it is a subsidary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services

 

[jreeves]

The Federal Government has almost no "Welfare" programs. This is something done by the States, some more, some less. Like so many you seem to think this nation has a huge number of people on Federal Welfare - it doesn't. Actual "Welfare" from the Fed. government amounts to about 1-3% of the budget, depending on what you want to include in that category. Mostly, it's aid to the helpless (mentally retarded, cripples, etc...).

Specifically what items would you eliminate and how much would this really amount too? (check, you'll find its almost nothing)

Just for perspective, if you add up the cost of the military, the cost of the current War, and the cost of past wars, it makes up about 55% of the US Fed. budget.

As for the top 50% paying 97% of the Fed. Taxes....

Breaking the population down into quintles by income:

00-20%: income = ~3% taxes = ~1%
21-40%: income = ~9% taxes = ~5%
41-60%: income = ~15% taxes = ~10%
61-80%: income = ~23% taxes = ~17%
81-100%: income = ~50% taxes = ~66%

So it's actually something more along the lines of 91%, not 97%.

Your implication is that the bottom 40% is the problem. But look at it logically - for a moment lets just forget about the bottom 40%. By your logic the 41-80% are a bunch of slackers! So the "middle class" taxes should be at least doubled right?

???

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.

 

[Diuretic]

While this war has cost a lot I am curious to how much this war has created. Does anyone have stats on how much revenue and jobs this war has created?

Apparently funeral parlours are making a killing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think the issue is: Can we afford to continue this "War on Terrorism" at this level of spending?"

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

FY2006 Entitlement spending INCREASED by $107B; FY2001-2007 entitlement spending totalled 9.545 TRILLION dollars

Thats 12.7x more than the wars.

-I- think the issue is: Can we afford to continue this "War on Poverty" at this level of spending -- because spending on the -wars- isnt what is bankrupting us.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.htm

 

[Toro]

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

FY2006 Entitlement spending INCREASED by $107B; FY2001-2007 entitlement spending totalled 9.545 TRILLION dollars

Thats 12.7x more than the wars.

-I- think the issue is: Can we afford to continue this "War on Poverty" at this level of spending -- because spending on the -wars- isnt what is bankrupting us.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.htm

Of course America can afford the wars. The problem is that there is no will to pay for it.

The cost of the war is not $107 billion this year. It is $188 billion. The deficit for this calendar year will be around $400 billion, maybe $500 billion. The recklessness and intellectual dishonesty of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress on fiscal matters and the wars is disgraceful. Of course, when you are selling fantasies that "deficits don't matter" and "tax cuts increase revenue," its no surprise that the base of the Republican party resists any and all tax cuts, regardless of the economic consequences.

And did you know the dollar hit an all-time low again this week? Well done. A weak dollar is a sure sign of economic strength!

This administration has, out of both practicality and ideology, chosen to cut taxes without reigning in spending. Not only has spending not been cut, it has increased at an accelerating pace. This is the only time in American history when tax rates were cut while war spending accelerated. In all other wars, the tax burden rose. WWI, taxes rose. WWII taxes rose. Vietnam taxes rose. Gulf War I taxes rose. Iraq War, taxes fell.

If this war is so important, then surely we should pay for it. Our grandfathers who fought in both wars understood the sacrifice that was needed. But not today's generation, particularly in the Republican party, where taxes are a litmus test to determine if you are one of the true faithful. Instead, that burden will fall on our children.

 

[jreeves]

Of course America can afford the wars. The problem is that there is no will to pay for it.

The cost of the war is not $107 billion this year. It is $188 billion. The deficit for this calendar year will be around $400 billion, maybe $500 billion. The recklessness and intellectual dishonesty of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress on fiscal matters and the wars is disgraceful. Of course, when you are selling fantasies that "deficits don't matter" and "tax cuts increase revenue," its no surprise that the base of the Republican party resists any and all tax cuts, regardless of the economic consequences.

And did you know the dollar hit an all-time low again this week? Well done. A weak dollar is a sure sign of economic strength!

This administration has, out of both practicality and ideology, chosen to cut taxes without reigning in spending. Not only has spending not been cut, it has increased at an accelerating pace. This is the only time in American history when tax rates were cut while war spending accelerated. In all other wars, the tax burden rose. WWI, taxes rose. WWII taxes rose. Vietnam taxes rose. Gulf War I taxes rose. Iraq War, taxes fell.

If this war is so important, then surely we should pay for it. Our grandfathers who fought in both wars understood the sacrifice that was needed. But not today's generation, particularly in the Republican party, where taxes are a litmus test to determine if you are one of the true faithful. Instead, that burden will fall on our children.

It's a fact Toro the "Bush" tax cuts increased tax revenue.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I see the point you are making on expenditures, BOTH of which I believe need to be much lower, but as for the last thing you said...

When exactly do you think it will ever NOT be a mess in Iraq?

I mean, even if it somehow made a miraculous turnaround and violence became almost non-existent...that would obviously be our cue to leave...what if the warring sects in that country decided to start their shit again after we left, now that the US military isn't there to strong-arm them anymore?

I mean, the violence in that country may NEVER go away now that we probably irreversibly distrupted the veritable "harmony" they once had there.

Short of dividing that country up into 3 parts, I think we completely ruined the political stability within there.

At some point, you just gotta let it go and move on. What better time then RIGHT NOW, when we're teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in this country. A mistake is a mistake. We simply cannot afford it financially, militarily, politically, or any other "ly" you can think of, anymore.

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.

 

[Toro]

It's a fact Toro the "Bush" tax cuts increased tax revenue.

Wrong. False causality.

 

[Taomon]

It's a fact Toro the "Bush" tax cuts increased tax revenue.

How does cutting taxes increase a tax income?

 

[mattskramer]

How does cutting taxes increase a tax income?

I don’t give it as much weight as conservatives do. The notion is that when big businesses don’t have to spend so much money paying taxes, they will invest that money in their business. They will expand and buy more land and equipment. Therefore government gets more property tax and consumption tax. It will hire more employees. Therefore the new employees will be paying taxes. It comes down to the notion that when people don’t have to pay as much in tax directly, they will invest in or use it in such a way that will result in more taxes being sent indirectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

 

[jreeves]

Wrong. False causality.

Not wrong sorry...Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush's 2003 tax rate reductions.

 

[jreeves]

How does cutting taxes increase a tax income?

Read my post to Toro...to see evidence, tax revenues increased.

 

[Toro]

How does cutting taxes increase a tax income?

It has the same effect as increasing government spending. If the US government decided today to build $1 trillion in infrastructure, economic activity would increase and tax revenues would go up. Then the liberal cheerleaders - like the conservative cheerleaders in this thread - would make the causal link that tax revenue increased because of government intervention in the economy. However, just like cutting taxes without cutting spending, such intervention increases the deficit.

Cutting taxes and increasing government spending without altering the other side of the balance sheet are different sides of the same coin. They produce economic activity in the near-term through deficit financing. That is all they are. They are putting lipstick on a pig.

Its like one day deciding you are going to stop paying your credit card bills. Suddenly, you have more money to spend. And the extra economic activity you will generate by foregoing your credit card payment is your justification for doing so. You're richer! Or not.

There may be tax-and-spend liberals but these dogmatic tax-cutting at all costs conservatives are merely tax-your-children-and-spend "conservatives" since the bill will be borne by your children in the future.

 

[jreeves]

It has the same effect as increasing government spending. If the US government decided today to build $1 trillion in infrastructure, economic activity would increase and tax revenues would go up. Then the liberal cheerleaders - like the conservative cheerleaders in this thread - would make the causal link that tax revenue increased because of government intervention in the economy. However, just like cutting taxes without cutting spending, such intervention increases the deficit.

Cutting taxes and increasing government spending without altering the other side of the balance sheet are different sides of the same coin. They produce economic activity in the near-term through deficit financing. That is all they are. They are putting lipstick on a pig.

Its like one day deciding you are going to stop paying your credit card bills. Suddenly, you have more money to spend. And the extra economic activity you will generate by foregoing your credit card payment is your justification for doing so. You're richer! Or not.

There may be tax-and-spend liberals but these dogmatic tax-cutting at all costs conservatives are merely tax-your-children-and-spend "conservatives" since the bill will be borne by your children in the future.

From my previous post....
These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

 

[Toro]

From my previous post....
These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Yes, that is because the economy was coming out of a recession while the taxes were being cut. Had taxes never been cut, we would have a surplus today, not a deficit. The CBO is projecting that when Bush's tax cuts expire, the budget will again be balanced.

 

[jreeves]

Yes, that is because the economy was coming out of a recession while the taxes were being cut. Had taxes never been cut, we would have a surplus today, not a deficit. The CBO is projecting that when Bush's tax cuts expire, the budget will again be balanced.

More projections Toro, not based on evidence....