Community Messageboard: Re: And where does the rest of the money come from? by random thoughts

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: And where does the rest of the money come from? random thoughts Send a noteboard - 27/05/2010 10:58:59 PM

You said Bush's war spending had doubled the national deficit. I know some people use rhetoric so often they sometimes throw it out there without actually thinking about what it means but since the basis of your argument was the 300 billion was a drop in bucket compared to the military spending I think it is a bit of key factor. If you use the more realistic number of 700 billion for the war it turns into a pretty damn big drop and your argument falls apart.

War Spending: Spending during a Time of War. Doesn't necessarily mean every cent went to bullets still being fired. Governments do not simply stop running their countries when they have a war on their hands, whatever FEMA may have told you.

If you look at the deficit under Bush a lot of it came simply from lost tax revenue after the Clinton tax bubble burst and a big part of it was drug benefits for senior citizens. The war was expensive but to claim it is the reason the deficient rose high is simply untrue. Also since most of that money was spent domestically you would think it would have provided some of that stimulus affect you are giving Obama credit for since engineers at Lockheed spend their paychecks at Walmart just like teachers do. (I know this to be fact because I worked there during the war

)

But ok, that is probably bad writing on my part. My meaning was that Bush's financial policies during a period when he was also incurring massive (unbudgeted) military spending led to the leap. The leap happened on his watch, there is no doubt of that.

There is no doubt the national debt has been growing for some time but that real spike came when Obama took office. Yes the overheated economy of the late 90s gave us a very brief surplus but beyond that the deficit has been growing for decades. Look at the chart I linked that shows the deficit as a percentage of GDP (the only real measure of debt) and you will see an increase starting in the 80’s (yes that was during Regan) and the a big jump when Obama cam into office. The only other jump that even compares is the WWII. Some small part was caused by a loss in GDP true but a lot was just increased spending.

But let's talk direct war spending. The 2010 budget, which is the first to directly cover spending for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, puts this years spending FOR THOSE SPECIFIC CONFLICTS at 663.8 Billion dollars. This is just direct costs of that conflict, however, maintaining troops in combat, etc. VA support is budgeted elsewhere. Spending for the rest of the war came in supplementary spending bills, which were not on the budget, which is one great reason why Bush's Budget may have looked more balanced. Great way to balance the budget, just don't count certain expenditures for the war effort.

As was pointed out by Legolas you are counting all DOD spending as direct war spending. The spending for the war was done with supplemental spending outside the normal budget. The are some valid reasons to criticize that approach but not to call all military spending as spending on the war. A lot of the DOD spending was on things the Pentagon didn’t even want but the people like John Murtha pushed because it sent a lot of money to their state. Fighting this sort of spending by the way is one area I give Obama a lot of credit for that. Doesn’t offset the other increases but it is still a positive.

Look, I am not arguing that the debt is not a big problem, merely that the numbers are far more complicated than the article makes them out to be. 600 Billion a year (give or take for ebb and flow of related expenses) makes a HUGE chunk of change in the end, and a great deal of that spending is off the books. That the conflicts are now actually being budgeted points to a rise in fiscal responsibility, rather than a decline.

I agree that the putting conflicts inside the budget is a good thing and I even support heavy cust to the DOD budget (better that then NASA) but I don’t think you can support the idea that increased military spending dwarfs increased domestic spending. Look at the chart I linked and massive jump in debt since 2008. The war was to borrow a phrase a drop in the bucket on that massive increase.

charts

Reply to message

US Debt Hits $13T - But Spending Spree in DC Continues.....

trzaska2000 - 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM 918 Views

Look who finally remembered they oppose federal deficits. Joel - 26/05/2010 05:26:30 PM 541 Views

Silly Joel.....please find the posts where I supported GWB's deficit spending. trzaska2000 - 26/05/2010 05:35:13 PM 599 Views

hmmm Aisha - 26/05/2010 05:40:49 PM 537 Views

That's different; spending trillions on the Iraq war is necessary national defense, just ask Fox. Joel - 26/05/2010 05:46:49 PM 740 Views

0.7 Trillion doesn't usually qualify as 'Trillions' Isaac - 26/05/2010 06:16:15 PM 685 Views

I'm not willing to try parsing how much DoD spending was and wasn't Iraq just now. Joel - 26/05/2010 06:27:50 PM 648 Views

You can knock off the "Faux News" stuff, makes you sound like you've been hanging at Daily Kos Isaac - 26/05/2010 07:06:16 PM 702 Views

umm ok. Aisha - 26/05/2010 07:26:02 PM 755 Views

A Fox News person was involved in writing the article so it sent him into a tissy fit random thoughts - 26/05/2010 10:56:35 PM 509 Views

Well, they annoyed the hell out of me by "accusing" Dems of something they supported for 5 years. Joel - 27/05/2010 03:30:08 PM 726 Views

ok now you are just making stuff up random thoughts - 27/05/2010 08:11:39 PM 967 Views

This would sound better if you didn't say yourself the support was mostly fake Isaac - 28/05/2010 01:05:44 PM 710 Views

I thought overthrowing Saddam was fine.....and it worked out very well. trzaska2000 - 26/05/2010 06:37:31 PM 508 Views

I'll take what comfort I can from this. Joel - 26/05/2010 06:45:53 PM 599 Views

"They" plural. Joel - 26/05/2010 05:45:48 PM 762 Views

you are so full of crap random thoughts - 26/05/2010 05:59:47 PM 560 Views

Oh, they weren't silent; they were quite vocal in their endorsement of the Iraq war. Joel - 26/05/2010 06:03:51 PM 805 Views

more ranting doesn't support your argument random thoughts - 26/05/2010 06:17:22 PM 720 Views

I'll respond to the coherent part of that.

Joel - 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM 734 Views

I wish ... Nate - 26/05/2010 06:57:30 PM 708 Views

Is the NYT any better pieces slandering McCain and his wife before an election? random thoughts - 26/05/2010 07:16:58 PM 573 Views

I don't know those articles specifically. Nate - 26/05/2010 08:27:44 PM 643 Views

So my repeated use of "M$" in moondogs thread only makes things worse?

Joel - 27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM 638 Views

These days I typically just say, "Fox. " Joel - 27/05/2010 03:48:40 PM 746 Views

You mean you will repsond to part that you like and ignore the part you don't because of a typo random thoughts - 26/05/2010 07:18:03 PM 679 Views

Actually, I think it was a pretty thorough response. Joel - 27/05/2010 03:57:55 PM 721 Views

then let me make is simpler random thoughts - 27/05/2010 07:23:19 PM 729 Views

I'll give Joel a little hand here... Legolas - 26/05/2010 09:14:27 PM 745 Views

commas are so over rated

random thoughts - 26/05/2010 10:50:57 PM 541 Views

The second paragraph is very hard to follow unless you already have an idea what he's going to say. Joel - 27/05/2010 03:43:09 PM 652 Views

yes the good republicans spent a lot of money so democrats should spend even more argument random thoughts - 26/05/2010 05:52:57 PM 500 Views

Well, I'll certainly agree that if it's bad, it's bad whoever's doing it. Joel - 26/05/2010 06:00:20 PM 709 Views

you are attacking Fox News becuase you object to opposing views being expressed random thoughts - 26/05/2010 06:27:29 PM 709 Views

Not at all; I just expect a little consistency. Joel - 26/05/2010 06:40:07 PM 731 Views

then why not show some and admit that all the news agency were backing the war random thoughts - 26/05/2010 07:10:57 PM 709 Views

Yes, they were; most of them stopped: One of them didn't. Joel - 27/05/2010 03:08:34 PM 679 Views

so the other media outlets get a pass because the supported losing a war they supported starting? random thoughts - 27/05/2010 06:39:21 PM 555 Views

We were heading in the wrong direction already, but Obama/Dems put the pedal to the floor... trzaska2000 - 26/05/2010 06:41:48 PM 496 Views

I don't mean to defend all of the spending that Obama and Congress have done since he's in power... Legolas - 26/05/2010 09:29:38 PM 684 Views

They did push the pedal further down even if they didn't start it random thoughts - 26/05/2010 10:46:38 PM 718 Views

Fair enough, I don't disagree with any of that. Legolas - 26/05/2010 10:53:32 PM 572 Views

I find this image to describe the deficits pretty useful Roland00 - 27/05/2010 01:56:29 AM 512 Views

Here is the problem with this kind of reporting... Dannymac - 27/05/2010 07:12:34 AM 644 Views

Correct Roland00 - 27/05/2010 02:11:47 PM 507 Views

The problem with that kind of logic is it is wrong random thoughts - 27/05/2010 02:19:37 PM 530 Views

Yes, that would be wrong. Dannymac - 27/05/2010 03:35:30 PM 549 Views

Based on Obama's budget, he will add more to the debt over the next 10 years..... trzaska2000 - 27/05/2010 04:10:45 PM 466 Views

Increasing the debt is a problem, yes. Dannymac - 27/05/2010 07:55:04 PM 840 Views

At least we agree that you are wrong because that is what you said random thoughts - 27/05/2010 06:50:43 PM 497 Views

And where does the rest of the money come from? Dannymac - 27/05/2010 08:12:31 PM 638 Views

No, that's for the entire Department of Defense. Legolas - 27/05/2010 08:25:28 PM 540 Views

using those numbers the war appears to be about half a drop in the bucket *NM* random thoughts - 27/05/2010 08:37:31 PM 289 Views

I wouldn't call it a drop in the bucket... Legolas - 27/05/2010 09:03:43 PM 749 Views

yeah I was just being a smart ass

random thoughts - 27/05/2010 11:09:37 PM 753 Views

Re: And where does the rest of the money come from? random thoughts - 27/05/2010 10:58:59 PM 644 Views

I interpreted it as saying... Legolas - 27/05/2010 02:22:13 PM 1003 Views

Hmmm... Dannymac - 27/05/2010 03:41:15 PM 565 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="111961"><quote id="111888"><quote id="111857">You said Bush's war spending had doubled the national deficit.  I know some people use rhetoric so often they sometimes throw it out there without actually thinking about what it means but since the basis of your argument was the 300 billion was a drop in bucket compared to the military spending I think it is a bit of key factor.  If you use the more realistic number of 700 billion for the war it turns into a pretty damn big drop and your argument falls apart. </quote></quote></quote>

<quote id="111961"><quote id="111888">War Spending: Spending during a Time of War. Doesn't necessarily mean every cent went to bullets still being fired. Governments do not simply stop running their countries when they have a war on their hands, whatever FEMA may have told you. </quote></quote>

<quote id="111961">If you look at the deficit under Bush a lot of it came simply from lost tax revenue after the Clinton tax bubble burst and a big part of it was drug benefits for senior citizens.  The war was expensive but to claim it is the reason the deficient rose high is simply untrue.  Also since most of that money was spent domestically you would think it would have provided some of that stimulus affect you are giving Obama credit for since engineers at Lockheed spend their paychecks at Walmart just like teachers do. (I know this to be fact because I worked there during the war;))</quote>

<quote id="111961"><quote id="111888">But ok, that is probably bad writing on my part. My meaning was that Bush's financial policies during a period when he was also incurring massive (unbudgeted) military spending led to the leap. The leap happened on his watch, there is no doubt of that. </quote></quote>

<quote id="111961">There is no doubt the national debt has been growing for some time but that real spike came when Obama took office.  Yes the overheated economy of the late 90s gave us a very brief surplus but beyond that the deficit has been growing for decades.  Look at the chart I linked that shows the deficit as a percentage of GDP (the only real measure of debt) and you will see an increase starting in the 80’s  (yes that was during Regan) and the a big jump when Obama cam into office.  The only other jump that even compares is the WWII.  Some small part was caused by a loss in GDP true but a lot was just increased spending. </quote>

<quote id="111961"><quote id="111888">But let's talk direct war spending. The 2010 budget, which is the first to directly cover spending for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, puts this years spending FOR THOSE SPECIFIC CONFLICTS at 663.8 Billion dollars. This is just direct costs of that conflict, however, maintaining troops in combat, etc. VA support is budgeted elsewhere. Spending for the rest of the war came in supplementary spending bills, which were not on the budget, which is one great reason why Bush's Budget may have looked more balanced. Great way to balance the budget, just don't count certain expenditures for the war effort.</quote></quote>

<quote id="111961">As was pointed out by Legolas you are counting all DOD spending as direct war spending.  The spending for the war was done with supplemental spending outside the normal budget.  The are some valid reasons to criticize that approach but not to call all military spending as spending on the war.  A lot of the DOD spending was on things the Pentagon didn’t even want but the people like John Murtha pushed because it sent a lot of money to their state.  Fighting this sort of spending by the way is one area I give Obama a lot of credit for that.  Doesn’t offset the other increases but it is still a positive. </quote>

<quote id="111961"><quote id="111888">Look, I am not arguing that the debt is not a big problem, merely that the numbers are far more complicated than the article makes them out to be. 600 Billion a year (give or take for ebb and flow of related expenses) makes a HUGE chunk of change in the end, and a great deal of that spending is off the books. That the conflicts are now actually being budgeted points to a rise in fiscal responsibility, rather than a decline. </quote></quote>

<quote id="111961">I agree that the putting conflicts inside the budget is a good thing and I even support heavy cust to the DOD budget (better that then NASA) but I don’t think you can support the idea that increased military spending dwarfs increased domestic spending.  Look at the chart I linked and massive jump in debt since 2008.  The war was to borrow a phrase a drop in the bucket on that massive increase. </quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password