- Joined
- May 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,671
- Reaction score
- 535
- Location
- OC California
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
War is a business to them. If there is no war, they have to start one or they lose profits. Exorbitant profits.. OUR TAX DOLLARS>>>>>>"DEFENSE" SPENDING>>>>>TRILLIONS>>> MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. Do you honestly think we would be in any more "danger" had we not been at war the last two decades and spent zillions? Could you maybe see how they might have contrived these wars for profit and/or private agenda?
Poll Question: Am I crazy to say that those who run the "military industrial complex" have hijacked our government and are sucking us dry?
you made another thread.
I shall utter the same response.
The majority of US debt comes from:
-Big bank bailouts. Goldman Sachs, the Koch brothers, JP Morgan... those people.
-Medical program failure...
-social security and entitlement programs failure
and least but not last.
-military spending.
In that order.
That being said.. if you would solve the big banks problem and Wall street... you would have virtually only 33% of the debt the US is in now. I mean it.
Its politicians that create war not the military...the military only goes where politicians tell them or allow them to go, seems your complaints whether legitimate or not are misplaced. You should rail on the politicians who start war and who are in fact in charge of what the military does and where it goes.
Considering the combined cost of the wars in afghanistan and iraq has been almost 4 trillion dollars, you're statement is entirely false. Unless you honestly believe we've given 4 trillion in bailouts?
Not to mention these are the direct additional costs of running the wars, not the amount we pay for maintaining such a large military.
Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters
Your post here is a ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparison, as you A) assume that 100% of spent money represents borrowed money and B) add in interest for that borrowed money to the cost and C) add in all future assessed liabilities. And that's before I get into the ridiculous nature of your source, which started with their conclusion and worked backwards.
However, by the standards you have proposed, the wars cost $3.7 Trillion. Social Security costs more than $8.6 Trillion. And Medicare costs more than $38.6 Trillion (I have not included the interest for the debt for either of those, which needless to say would radically increase their score).
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/defense-entitlement-spending-680.jpg[/igm]
The military is expensive. But it's not the thing driving our debt.[/QUOTE]
It's not a ridiculous apples-oranges comparison to compare government expenditures in relation to government debt. Rainman05 made the statement that the bailouts were more than the wars, which is factually untrue, regardless of how you cut it.
When you view the federal budget simply as net income and expenditures, all expenditures greater than income must become debt. Every single expenditure, from war, to bailouts, to medicare, to everything else, counts equally under expenditures.
It's rather arbitrary to say "We charged the bailouts on the credit card but paid the war in cash."
Lastly, are you really trying to assert that the war hasn't costed 3.7 billion dollars? Do I really require more sources?
Considering the combined cost of the wars in afghanistan and iraq has been almost 4 trillion dollars, you're statement is entirely false. Unless you honestly believe we've given 4 trillion in bailouts?
Not to mention these are the direct additional costs of running the wars, not the amount we pay for maintaining such a large military.
Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters
It's not a ridiculous apples-oranges comparison to compare government expenditures in relation to government debt. Rainman05 made the statement that the bailouts were more than the wars, which is factually untrue, regardless of how you cut it.
When you view the federal budget simply as net income and expenditures, all expenditures greater than income must become debt. Every single expenditure, from war, to bailouts, to medicare, to everything else, counts equally under expenditures.
Lastly, are you really trying to assert that the war hasn't costed 3.7 billion dollars? Do I really require more sources?
Your post here is a ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparison, as you A) assume that 100% of spent money represents borrowed money and B) add in interest for that borrowed money to the cost and C) add in all future assessed liabilities. And that's before I get into the ridiculous nature of your source, which started with their conclusion and worked backwards.
However, by the standards you have proposed, the wars cost $3.7 Trillion. Social Security costs more than $8.6 Trillion. And Medicare costs more than $38.6 Trillion (I have not included the interest for the debt for either of those, which needless to say would radically increase their score).
The military is expensive. But it's not the thing driving our debt.
The fact that you feel you need to explain that the military itself doesn't create war shows that you apparently do not understand the definition of the term "Military–industrial complex"
This term includes the politicians, corporations, lobbyists, and other such relationships that decide when, where, how and with what war is waged.
"Military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex[1], is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the defense industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for defense spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry"
Marine what you havent included in your numbers....is Military Pay and benefits and healthcare costs...add that and the cost goes up significantly.
Comparing Social Security and Medicare to the military isnt a fair....Social Security and Medicare cover vastly more people and it is taxed from them for their entire lifetimes.
You know I love the military and I stand by them and what they do and what they need 500% this is not about them
:shrug: and people are taxed to pay for the military. those programs continue to be the main drivers of our debt - especially Medicare. That is why that program needs reform - if we do not find a way to reign in costs while still extending the maximum possible protection to our lower-income seniors, then it will collapse, and they will be left in the cold.
Actually that is included.
:shrug: and people are taxed to pay for the military. those programs continue to be the main drivers of our debt - especially Medicare. That is why that program needs reform - if we do not find a way to reign in costs while still extending the maximum possible protection to our lower-income seniors, then it will collapse, and they will be left in the cold.
well, take that that up with alpaca, as he seems to think that cutting dod spending will produce some kind of nirvana.
I'm anti-TARP, but as CPWill pointed out, most of that money was, or will be paid back. Even if it wasn't, the number is still substantially lower than the rest.So that still leaves 9.5tril unaccounted for... and that 9.5 comes from the bailouts to the banks. The entitlement programs. Everything I mentioned before.
well, take that that up with alpaca, as he seems to think that cutting dod spending will produce some kind of nirvana.
You could have had medicare reform Cp...but the far right blew it. How in the world they believed that somehow they could get away with giving tax cuts to the rich in the same plan that cuts medicare defies reason. Ryan had a golden opportunity to become a Super Star in American Politics and he threw it away by adding a huge tax cut for only the top 2% of our richest and corporations.
I'm anti-TARP, but as CPWill pointed out, most of that money was, or will be paid back. Even if it wasn't, the number is still substantially lower than the rest.
Yep, you nailed it. I stated that cutting DOD spending would usher in a new era of prosperity and freedom. Let's give three cheers for america! Hip hip!
What I actually stated was that he was wrong in his statement about the costs to the taxpayers of the war.
I can personally think of about a million better ways to spend $3.7 billion dollars than by pissing it away on s***holes like afghanistan and iraq, on people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If taxes must be collected, I'd rather have them spent on our OWN PEOPLE than the slums of other nations.
:doh you think that 100% of the American populace represents the top 2%? Ryan's plan included across the board nominal tax rate reductions; and tax reform is critical if we want to spur the kind of growth that will allow us to fund Medicare going forward.
The REAL source of the problem is having expenditures greater than income. Our politicians mouths write checks that our citizens' asses can't cash. The wars are one of the many many sources we have contributing to our debt, but certainly not all.I agree with this but the issue is that military spending is not the real source of the problem. It is one of the sources for the problem, but the real source is something else... big banks and wall street bailouts, failed medicare programs and a failed social security program for the masses.
What is missing from a lot of these posts is how much of social security coosts are wasted. Or, another example, with the big bank bailouts there is a cost of not bailing them out. I'm a retired design engineer so when I was describing problems to peers where costs were an issue I had to describe in detail losses and gains in what happened and what would happen. Otherwise it's just assumptions....
The majority of US debt comes from:
-Big bank bailouts. Goldman Sachs, the Koch brothers, JP Morgan... those people.
-Medical program failure...
-social security and entitlement programs failure
and least but not last.
-military spending.
In that order.
That being said.. if you would solve the big banks problem and Wall street... you would have virtually only 33% of the debt the US is in now. I mean it.
What is missing from a lot of these posts is how much of social security coosts are wasted. Or, another example, with the big bank bailouts there is a cost of not bailing them out. I'm a retired design engineer so when I was describing problems to peers where costs were an issue I had to describe in detail losses and gains in what happened and what would happen. Otherwise it's just assumptions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?