How should we pay for the war?

[ALiberalModerate]

Gather all the Democrats and liberals who supported the Welfare system and have them chip in their paychecks to fund the entitlements programs which constitute 50% of the federal budget.

Yeah, they already do that. You see, Medicare and Social Security, which are paid out of payroll taxes, currently have surpluses. The deficits are entirely in general outlays, of which defense is by far the largest outlay.

The irony of it, is that without Social Security and Medicare Systems, and thus payroll taxes, the current budget deficits would be considerably larger than they are, indeed, those liberal programs are not only paying for themselves right now, they are also floating part of the deficits resulting from the war in Iraq.

Its those conservatives that have handed us our current deficits, and its those conservatives that don't seem to want to pay for the things they want (war, corporate welfare, enriching defense contractors, and so on).

 

[MSgt]

Cheese.

Iraqis like cheese.

 

[bub]

Cheese.

Iraqis like cheese.

French cheese?

 

[Ikari]

With the costs of the war growing ever more, how do you good people propose we pay for it? I'm not economically savvy enough to provide any real answers so I thought I'd let some of you come up with ideas and then I'll make a poll with the more prominent ideas of 5 right wingers/5 left wingers.

Umm...more war?

 

[Goobieman]

2- Gather bush, Cheney and all the rest of the Repubs that sided with bush going into Iraq and let them all chip in to pay for it and to pay our Troops and there familys for the screwing they are getting from bush and company.

So.. the vast multitude of Dems that supported the war should not have to pay?

 

[RightOfCenter]

Social Security needs no help what so ever.
In fact it is supporting the federal government.

People get it in their minds that we the people are supporting those on Social Security and they forget all about the fact that the ones on Social Security paid in Social Security for 40+ years.
Additionally, the lifespan from 75 until death is not a big one and many do not withdraw but a small fraction of what they paid in.

The problem is not that Social Security needs more money.
The problem is that the government spends the money.
If all of the baby boomers Social Security Taxes were put in an interest drawing account as it was sent in, the government would have a gigantic surplus.
But instead, we took their money and spent it.
Now some people are actually in favor of not repaying it once our government's embezzlement of Social Security starts to become painful.
And no one seems to realize that these senior citizens have paid in substantially more than they are waiting to receive.

If we want to fix social security, all we need to do is stop spending their money.

That's not how social security works. When the people who are receiving it now were paying into it they were providing for those already on social security.

 

[obvious Child]

This war is NOTHING like WWII... but I hear ya.

In most levels yes, it's not like WWII. In terms of spending it is. Furthermore, if people are going to justify Iraq on the basis of WWII arguments, they better damn well have some WWII-sacrifice argument in store.

Have Haliburton and other defense contractors pay instead of gain and they might make sure that it is a war worth fighting.

I'm not sure if that's a joke.

 

[Goobieman]

In most levels yes, it's not like WWII. In terms of spending it is.

Its not even close.
WW cost, in current dollars, about $5 trillion.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Its not even close.
WW cost, in current dollars, about $5 trillion.

It's closer than you think:

The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More - washingtonpost.com

 

[obvious Child]

Its not even close.
WW cost, in current dollars, about $5 trillion.

As SD has pointed out, it's not that far off. Furthermore, depending on interest rates, it could meet the $5 trillion mark if we keep paying for debt by issuing new debt. Paying war related debt at a measly 3% is not hard. Paying for it at 7% is painful.Furthermore if Stiglitz has not accounted for the massive rise in veteran healthcare (which seems to be revised every so often) over the life of these soldiers, the costs could easily eclipse WWII.

 

[Goobieman]

It's closer than you think

That $3T figure isn't the cost of the war, its what someone thats trying to make a political point thinks the war might cost.

Thus, its not as close as you think.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

As SD has pointed out, it's not that far off. Furthermore, depending on interest rates, it could meet the $5 trillion mark if we keep paying for debt by issuing new debt. Paying war related debt at a measly 3% is not hard. Paying for it at 7% is painful.Furthermore if Stiglitz has not accounted for the massive rise in veteran healthcare (which seems to be revised every so often) over the life of these soldiers, the costs could easily eclipse WWII.

Yeah, think about what that money could have went for. We could have easily fixed the Social Security / Medicare "crisis" with 3 trillion. Of course, the cons would rather us piss it away on their Middle East social experiment instead.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That $3T figure isn't the cost of the war, its what someone thats trying to make a political point thinks the war might cost.

Thus, its not as close as you think.

Well, its based in a published economics study. After all, every bullet fired over there has to replaced, every piece of equipment used has to be either repaired or replaced, then when you figure in the costs of taking care of our injured soldiers, and all the other costs associated with the war, you get a conservative estimate of about 3 trillion if we packed up and left today.

 

[obvious Child]

That $3T figure isn't the cost of the war, its what someone thats trying to make a political point thinks the war might cost.

Thus, its not as close as you think.

Huh?

How are costs associated with financing the war, paying for veterans' healthcare and war debt servicing not part of the cost of war?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Huh?

How are costs associated with financing the war, paying for veterans' healthcare and war debt servicing not part of the cost of war?

Basically, in his world evidently if you buy a vehicle, then the cost of ownership is simply the purchase price of the vehicle. You don't figure in gas, license fees and taxes, insurance, maintenance, future repairs, interest on the car loan, and so on.

It makes you wonder if he has ever had to do a TCO estimate on a budget or proposal.

 

[Goobieman]

Basically, in his world...

So, basically, in your world, you take a projection from an op-ed piece -- that is, something specifically designed to put forth a political opinion -- as a certified 'actual cost'.

:roll:

When the bill gets to $3T, let me know.
Otherwise, you're claiming credibility for the $3T number because you like it.

Oh, and as long as you're adding 'hidden costs' of the war in Iraq, please be sure to compare appled and oranges by adding those same costs into the total bill for WW2. Work on that and get back to me.

 

[Goobieman]

Huh?

How are costs associated with financing the war, paying for veterans' healthcare and war debt servicing not part of the cost of war?

Add those numbers into the "costs" for WW2, and -then- compare the wars.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So, basically, in your world, you take a projection from an op-ed piece -- that is, something specifically designed to put forth a political opinion -- as a certified 'actual cost'.

:roll:

When the bill gets to $3T, let me know.
Otherwise, you're claiming credibility for the $3T number because you like it.

Oh, and as long as you're adding 'hidden costs' of the war in Iraq, please be sure to compare appled and oranges by adding those same costs into the total bill for WW2. Work on that and get back to me.

Where did you get your WW2 cost figure, and what is included in it? Also, is it just the costs the United States incurred, or the costs for the war globally for all nations involved?

Secondly, the OP/Ed is about a book, not just someone's opinion in the OP/Ed.

IRAQ WAR COST ESTIMATES RUN INTO THE TRILLIONS
New book says war will cost at least $3 trillion before it's over.

By David R. Francis | columnist
from the March 10, 2008 edition
E-mail Print Letter to the Editor Republish del.icio.us digg
Page 1 of 2

Next week, the Iraq war enters its sixth year. As casualties mount (about 4,000 American soldiers killed since the start of the war in March 2003), so do the bills.

"The cost is going up every month," says Linda Bilmes, an expert at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. She estimates the short-term, "running cost" has reached $12.5 billion a month. That's up from $4.4 billion a month in 2003. Add in long-term factors, such as the care of veterans and interest on federal debt incurred as a result of the war, and the cost piles up to $25 billion a month nowadays.

Last September in a phone interview, Ms. Bilmes estimated the war's total price tag as easily exceeding $2 trillion. In a book published last month, she and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist from Columbia University, New York, estimated the total long-run cost at $3 trillion in 2007 valued dollars. If you add in Afghanistan and various costs to the economy, the sum reaches $4.95 trillion.

Iraq war cost estimates run into the trillions | csmonitor.com

War cost in perspective

In historical perspective, the Iraq conflict is already one of the most expensive conflicts in U.S. history.
The price tag in Iraq now is more than double the cost of the Korean War and a third more expensive than the Vietnam War, which lasted 12 years. Stiglitz and Bilmes calculate that it will be at least 10 times as costly as the 1991 Gulf War and twice the cost of World War I.
Only World War II was more expensive. That four-year war - in which 16 million U.S. troops were deployed on two fronts, fighting against Germany and Japan - cost about $5 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The latest numbers are a far cry from the cost estimates made by war supporters in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/17/MNBVVL9GK.DTL

 

[Goobieman]

Where did you get your WW2 cost figure, and what is included in it? Also, is it just the costs the United States incurred, or the costs for the war globally for all nations involved?

US DOW/DON expenditures, 1941-1945: $302.5B
GI -- World War II Commemoration
Ajdusted to current dollars: $4537.5T

These numbers do not include any of the "other costs" necessary to inflate the cost of the Iraq war to anywhere near the amount of WW2.

So, add those "other costs" to WW2 and get back to me.
The good news here is that these will be actual, costs, not projections.

Secondly, the OP/Ed is about a book, not just someone's opinion in the OP/Ed.

Oh, that makes it SO much better. :roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

US DOW/DON expenditures, 1941-1945: $302.5B
GI -- World War II Commemoration
Ajdusted to current dollars: $4537.5T

These numbers do not include any of the "other costs" you had to add ito the Iraq war to inflate it to anywhere near the amount of WW2.

So, add those "other costs" to WW2 and get back to me.
The good news here is that these will be actual, costs, not projections.


Oh, that makes it SO much better. :roll:

Either way, we are still looking at a conservative estimate of 3 trillion dollars for this war and its associated costs that we would have otherwise not incurred.

 

[Goobieman]

Either way, we are still looking at a conservative estimate of 3 trillion dollars for this war and its associated costs that we would have otherwise not incurred.

A "conservative estimate". :spin:
It's an estimate that you like because you think you can make political hay with it, and nothing more.

I see you aren't interested in comparing the TRUE cost of WW2 to the "true" cost of th Iraq war. Why is that?

Because there -is- no comparison, perhaps?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

A "conservative estimate". :spin:
It's an estimate that you like because you think you can make political hay with it, and nothing more.

I see you aren't interested in comparing the TRUE cost of WW2 to the "true" cost of th Iraq war. Why is that?

Because there -is- no comparison, perhaps?

Are you really wanting to hang your hat on comparing the costs of a Global War fought on 2 fronts to the cost of a single war in some dip **** Middle Eastern dump?

Of course, the cost of the war in Iraq is less than the cost of World War II. However, it is still more expensive than any other war in American history. As a "conservative" does that not concern you?

I would also add that we nearly went bankrupt paying for World War II, after all, we had a 91% top bracket tax rate to pay the war debt off. Do you want that kind of a tax rate to pay off this little right wing social experiment in Iraq?

 

[Goobieman]

Are you really wanting to hang your hat on comparing the costs of a Global War fought on 2 fronts to the cost of a single war in some dip **** Middle Eastern dump?

You were pretty happy to do so when you thought you could make a point with it. You then realized just how wrong you were, and now you're running away from it. :lol:

Of course, the cost of the war in Iraq is less than the cost of World War II. However, it is still more expensive than any other war in American history.

Knowing that you have to keep to the same standard of calculating "cost" -- that is, use the formula that created your "true cost" of the Iraq war for the other wars you care to name -- I'd like you to prove your statement true.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You were pretty happy to do so when you thought you could make a point with it. You then realized just how wrong you were, and now you're running away from it. :lol:


Knowing that you have to keep to the same standard of calculating "cost" -- that is, use the formula that created your "true cost" of the Iraq war for the other wars you care to name -- I'd like you to prove your statement true.

Who has the time to dig all that up, I will just concede the point to you. :lol:

 

[MSgt]

French cheese?

Haha...you said, "French."