Political Progress in Iraq

[ecoli]

How can we afford it, when we're funding it with inflation and borrowing?

 

We're paying for the war with debt, which has to paid back sooner or later.

[Pangloss]

That's not true, ecoli, and you're avoiding the question. If you want to state that the entire budget is operating in the red, that is truth. To state that we're funding the war on debt is deliberately misleading, because the war only represents a fraction of the budget, and a tiny percentage of GDP, as you well know. So when I read something I like that I have to question whether your purpose is to discuss truth or to sell me something.

 

Want to try again?

[ecoli]

That's not true, ecoli, and you're avoiding the question. If you want to state that the entire budget is operating in the red, that is truth. To state that we're funding the war on debt is deliberately misleading,

No, that's a fact.

 

In the case of Iraq, instead of raising taxes to pay for the war, the current Bush administration is cutting them, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit... Equally important, investors, including the Chinese government, are financing the war in Iraq by buying Treasury bonds. Foreign investors are not buying bonds because they agree with American foreign policy; they buy bonds as a good investment that will be repaid with interest -- by taxes on Americans for decades to come.

http://hnn.us/articles/31431.html

 

unless we change the war the war is being funded, by raising taxes, the future is going to have to absorb a huge deficit.

 

 

because the war only represents a fraction of the budget, and a tiny percentage of GDP, as you well know.

 

 

Now, I'm no idiot... it's possible that the war won't cripple us, financially. We've come back from bad recessions before, and I don't think this war is going to be the end of the United states, but is it really worth the risk?

 

The administration doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for the war, we are borrowing and printing money. This causes inflation, which has it's own adverse affects.

 

Obviously, the federal budget is huge, and this war may be a drop in the bucket, but the ripples are spreading far and wide.

 

Current estimates predict that Iraq could wind up costing up to 1 trillion dollars, once medical care for veterans is assessed. Furthermore, with no end to the war in sight, we really have no idea what overall spending will be.

 

I read somewhere that we have spend 1 trillion dollars in Korea over the past 50 someodd years we've been there. This is only a fraction of the federal budget, but are we seeing the results that we want?

 

These things add up, and there are tradeoffs to consider. Spending on the Iraq war is weakening social security. I especially worry if a hawkish democrat takes office and wants to expand social programs without taking us out of Iraq. Funding for non-military research is suffering, as I'm sure we all know, here.

 

do you honestly think a war where we spend approximately $200 million dollars per week is not going to affect funding for other aspects of government?

 

You speak of 'tightening the belt'... but does that mean we should let inflation hurt our purchasing power and lower our standard of living?

 

Can you demonstrate, for me, that the Iraq war is not causing current inflationary, devaluing dollar, etc, because I honestly don't see how you reckon war spending won't hurt our economy.

[Pangloss]

No, that's a fact.

 

No, it's spin. The fact is that the budget is in the red. The spin comes in when you declare that any one aspect of the budget is being funded by debt. The budget exceeds earnings, and it is therefore being funded by debt.

 

By what logic do you isolate Iraq from the rest? The fact that it's disliked? I can name $500 billion in spending right now I think is wrong. The fact that it's new? Do you have any idea how much new spending went into the 2007 budget?

 

By your reasoning I could pick any spending or collection of spending in the neighborhood of $400 billion and then make the claim that "unless we change the way <those programs> are funded, the future is going to have to absorb a huge deficit".

 

You don't want to pay for the war anymore. I got it. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's just not that simple.

 

One of the things that people don't seem to realize is that international politics is a complex game with very experienced players. We need to be playing that game, not sticking our heads in the sand about it. When we step up to the table we can play it as well or better than anybody else on the planet. We need to ENGAGE. When our international reputation flounders, we have to FIGHT that. Not because it's a bad thing for people to dislike us, but because this isn't the kiddie pool -- these countries are playing for KEEPS, and we are target numero uno on everybody's list. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. THAT's the world we live in, guy.

 

Liberals want us to pull out and pay, apologizing and begging forgiveness (Rocky says, "That trick never works!"). Conservatives want us to pull out and NOT pay, telling the world to shove it. Frankly they're both wrong. We pull out AND we pay, and we do that not because it's an apology and not even, in the end, because it's the moral right, but because that's how we get back on top of the game.

 

 

Now, I'm no idiot... it's possible that the war won't cripple us, financially. We've come back from bad recessions before, and I don't think this war is going to be the end of the United states, but is it really worth the risk?

 

We'll have to agree to disagree here, but I think you should acknowledge the point I'm making about international disagreement, because it's one thing to say that we shouldn't do it because it's expensive, and yet another to stick your head in the sand about what the consequences of that action are going to be.

 

 

The administration doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for the war, we are borrowing and printing money. This causes inflation, which has it's own adverse affects.

 

Quite right. They also don't want to raise taxes to pay for increased defense spending, education, social security, etc etc etc.

 

 

Obviously, the federal budget is huge, and this war may be a drop in the bucket, but the ripples are spreading far and wide.

 

A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. Whether it is spent on the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan or Old Widow Jamison's frost-damaged Mulberry bushes is irrelevent.

 

 

Current estimates predict that Iraq could wind up costing up to 1 trillion dollars, once medical care for veterans is assessed.

 

Yes, or about 3-4 months' GDP.

 

Incidentally, I see our post-departure "debt" as something in the neighborhood of $200-300 billion. That's what I think we should spend on Iraqi infrastructure over the next 4-5 years. About 10x NASA's budget over the same span, or about half what we spend in one year on Defense.

 

Incidentally, you realize that that's what's going to happen, right? You're pretty much whistling in the wind here. This will be more or less automatic, regardless of who becomes president.

 

 

Furthermore, with no end to the war in sight, we really have no idea what overall spending will be.

 

Don't be inflamatory. I haven't suggested an open spigot. What I advocate during Iraqi reconstruction (post US main departure) is responsible (fully accounted) spending on Iraqi infrastructure and rebuilding projects, gradually decreasing over time and being replaced by investment and loans.

 

 

I read somewhere that we have spend 1 trillion dollars in Korea over the past 50 someodd years we've been there. This is only a fraction of the federal budget, but are we seeing the results that we want?

 

Is that adjusted for inflation? I'll assume it is. That's an interesting statistic. Are you unhappy with our investment there? It seems like quite a success story to me. What's the problem?

 

 

Spending on the Iraq war is weakening social security.

 

No more so than any other aspect of our ridiculously out of control budget.

 

 

I especially worry if a hawkish democrat takes office and wants to expand social programs without taking us out of Iraq. Funding for non-military research is suffering, as I'm sure we all know, here.

 

Quite right.

 

 

do you honestly think a war where we spend approximately $200 million dollars per week is not going to affect funding for other aspects of government?

 

Of course it does. And my point is that this is irrelevent.

 

 

Can you demonstrate, for me, that the Iraq war is not causing current inflationary, devaluing dollar, etc, because I honestly don't see how you reckon war spending won't hurt our economy.

 

As I said, all spending over earnings is bad.

[ParanoiA]

One of the things that people don't seem to realize is that international politics is a complex game with very experienced players. We need to be playing that game, not sticking our heads in the sand about it. When we step up to the table we can play it as well or better than anybody else on the planet.[/b'] We need to ENGAGE. When our international reputation flounders, we have to FIGHT that. Not because it's a bad thing for people to dislike us, but because this isn't the kiddie pool -- these countries are playing for KEEPS, and we are target numero uno on everybody's list. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. THAT's the world we live in, guy.

 

Why does it require military action to NOT stick our heads in the sand? Play the game better? Like where and how did that happen? Our games, that you seem to think we're so good it, are what lead to a 'friend today, enemy tomorrow' relationship with some pretty ugly characters in the middle east - one of which is responsible for over 3000 american dead in one attack, and the other got so bad we rationalized an invasion since we had the receipts from the shit we sold him.

 

I'm not into your games. This is real life. Not a freaking game. Yes, this is not the kiddie pool and acting like a jackass isn't being grown up. And that's how we're acting in international politics.

 

Todays conservatives love to sell this crap. Like anyone who isn't for military intervention throughout the globe is some love child pacifist fool that doesn't understand the stakes of international maneuvering. I'd argue the other way. We look more like a drunk in the bar at 2:00 am looking for a fight with everyone who looks at him wrong (preemptive strike), mumbling about his wallet and how we're all jealous of his car (target numero uno).

 

We know we are the king of the hill in terms of might, and should be in terms of economy. We know we're a target. This is why we should be on defense. This is why we need our troops here at home, not in Korea (not a success story - unless of course you view our money and blood as part of a "game"). This is why we need an international face of dignity and respect - a nation that will only unleash its impressive military might when it has been attacked. A nation that assumes no international role - a humbled international presence.

 

That's not sticking your head in the sand, that's gaining the moral high ground in the international adult pool.

[ecoli]

No, it's spin. The fact is that the budget is in the red. The spin comes in when you declare that any one aspect of the budget is being funded by debt. The budget exceeds earnings, and it is therefore being funded by debt.

My argument, is therefore, if we weren't spending so much money on the war, we wouldn't be so much in debt.

 

Yes, a dollar spent in the war would be the same as a dollar spent here... but if wasn't for the war, we wouldn't be spending that money in the first place.

 

By what logic do you isolate Iraq from the rest? The fact that it's disliked? I can name $500 billion in spending right now I think is wrong. The fact that it's new? Do you have any idea how much new spending went into the 2007 budget?

You can't isolate Iraq, when considering the budget overall, but that doesn't mean the spending doesn't matter.

 

If I have enough money to buy food, but then I get a credit card, so I can buy cable access as well, I may be spending more money on food, but that doesn't mean buying cable won't hurt me economically when I get that credit card bill. Besides the fact, you could certainly have an argument whether or not getting cable is necessary.

 

Maybe that's not a great analogy, but you see what I mean?

 

By your reasoning I could pick any spending or collection of spending in the neighborhood of $400 billion and then make the claim that "unless we change the way <those programs> are funded, the future is going to have to absorb a huge deficit".

You could, but then you'd have to weigh the economic costs/benefits of the thing.

 

For example, right now, the economic argument against the war would be less, if we had an outside source of funding. From oil revenue, or something like that. But, that has only been proposed, not accepted.

 

 

One of the things that people don't seem to realize is that international politics is a complex game with very experienced players. We need to be playing that game, not sticking our heads in the sand about it. When we step up to the table we can play it as well or better than anybody else on the planet. We need to ENGAGE. When our international reputation flounders, we have to FIGHT that. Not because it's a bad thing for people to dislike us, but because this isn't the kiddie pool -- these countries are playing for KEEPS, and we are target numero uno on everybody's list. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. THAT's the world we live in, guy.

And at what sacrifice. I, personally, feel less safe today than before the war on terror. And it's not because of terrorists, that's because of our own government systematically stripping away rights. I shudder to think what may happen should the government ever fully use the powers it is granted by the PATRIOT act. I worry about the reinstatement of the draft. This things are political possibilities, which may be helping us "engage" as a nation, but is not making us a more free people. And isn't that we are saying we're fighting for in Iraq?

 

Liberals want us to pull out and pay, apologizing and begging forgiveness (Rocky says, "That trick never works!"). Conservatives want us to pull out and NOT pay, telling the world to shove it. Frankly they're both wrong. We pull out AND we pay, and we do that not because it's an apology and not even, in the end, because it's the moral right, but because that's how we get back on top of the game.

Well I disagree with both scenarios.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree here, but I think you should acknowledge the point I'm making about international disagreement, because it's one thing to say that we shouldn't do it because it's expensive, and yet another to stick your head in the sand about what the consequences of that action are going to be.

I absolutely understand where you are coming from, and I used to profess similar beliefs. However, we obviously have different ideas about moral responsibility. Also, I don't necessarily agree that pulling out of Iraq will cause a civil war... have heard too much different viewpoints to make an informed opinion about that.

 

Quite right. They also don't want to raise taxes to pay for increased defense spending, education, social security, etc etc etc.

Yes, but when it comes to defense spending, spending on defense instead of the Iraq war would arguably make us more safe from terrorism.

I don't believe federal gov't. should be in education, and social security should be phased out anyway.

 

 

A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. Whether it is spent on the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan or Old Widow Jamison's frost-damaged Mulberry bushes is irrelevent.

I don't know about that... a dollar spent on Iraq war would affect oil prices a lot more than the Mulberry bushes... unless we're considering that as a form of alternative energy.

 

 

Don't be inflamatory. I haven't suggested an open spigot. What I advocate during Iraqi reconstruction (post US main departure) is responsible (fully accounted) spending on Iraqi infrastructure and rebuilding projects, gradually decreasing over time and being replaced by investment and loans.

I never said you were, so don't strawman me here. I was attacking Bush's no time-table policy, not your support of the war.

 

 

Is that adjusted for inflation? I'll assume it is. That's an interesting statistic. Are you unhappy with our investment there? It seems like quite a success story to me. What's the problem?

Well if our goal is to try to secure civil rights for people in Korea (at least, I believe that was the goal in the 50's) we failed north of the 38th parallel.

[Pangloss]

Why does it require military action to NOT stick our heads in the sand?

 

I didn't say that it did. Ecoli and I weren't discussing military action, we were discussing economic action following main military withdrawl from Iraq. What I was discussing is very different from what conservatives generally want at the moment, as I said in my last post.

 

 

My argument' date=' is therefore, if we weren't spending so much money on the war, we wouldn't be so much in debt.

 

Yes, a dollar spent in the war would be the same as a dollar spent here... but if wasn't for the war, we wouldn't be spending that money in the first place. [/quote']

 

Actually your argument is that we should stop spending immediately upon pullout. That is the position you took that I'm arguing with. I feel the need to remind you of this because you keep changing the subject, apparently because you're not comfortable defending this assertion. 98% of your post above is not relevent to the point we are discussing. For example, I'm not defending the war, but you keep saying that we shouldn't be in Iraq. You don't like those consequences, so you defend them by saying "well I didn't support the war in Iraq". That preference is simply not relevent to the issue of whether those consequences will take place. And saying we can't afford it is not only a dodge, it also isn't true.

 

 

You can't isolate Iraq, when considering the budget overall, but that doesn't mean the spending doesn't matter.

 

If I have enough money to buy food, but then I get a credit card, so I can buy cable access as well, I may be spending more money on food, but that doesn't mean buying cable won't hurt me economically when I get that credit card bill. Besides the fact, you could certainly have an argument whether or not getting cable is necessary.

 

Maybe that's not a great analogy, but you see what I mean?

 

Of course I do, and I've responded to it on that basis. Whether you feel this spending is the correct spending is a matter of personal opinion and we will have to agree to disagree. But there is no objective basis for manifest agreement here, as you claim by raising the "cable television" concept. It's a matter of judgement, weighing the cost of international disparagement against the cost of paying these bills. I've demonstrated why that's not the case, and you've not refuted the point.

[ecoli]

Actually your argument is that we should stop spending immediately upon pullout.

Not really. My argument (and if you think I've said something different, then I apologize for not being clear) is that by pulling out, we won't need to spend that much money on Iraq, thereby helping to stabilize a fragile economy.

My entire argument is dependent upon my opinion, that I don't believe we should be there in the first place, and I feel little moral responsibility of the consequences of pulling out (though, I don't think I believe there would be a civil war, anyway).

Therefore, I do not see any economic benefits of staying in Iraq, regardless of how much or little it relatively costs.

 

 

 

That is the position you took that I'm arguing with. I feel the need to remind you of this because you keep changing the subject, apparently because you're not comfortable defending this assertion. 98% of your post above is not relevent to the point we are discussing.

Me changing the subject?? The only part that may have not been on subject was in response to this:

One of the things that people don't seem to realize is that international politics is a complex game with very experienced players. We need to be playing that game, not sticking our heads in the sand about it. When we step up to the table we can play it as well or better than anybody else on the planet. We need to ENGAGE. When our international reputation flounders, we have to FIGHT that. Not because it's a bad thing for people to dislike us, but because this isn't the kiddie pool -- these countries are playing for KEEPS, and we are target numero uno on everybody's list. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. THAT's the world we live in, guy.

 

I don't see any economic argument there, so maybe I'm not the one who is "straying" from the topic.

 

For example, I'm not defending the war, but you keep saying that we shouldn't be in Iraq. You don't like those consequences, so you defend them by saying "well I didn't support the war in Iraq". That preference is simply not relevent to the issue of whether those consequences will take place. And saying we can't afford it is not only a dodge, it also isn't true.

I'm saying I don't believe that the Iraq war is worth the money we spend on it. And, by spending on the war, we are taking unnecessary risks in a time of a fragile economy.

 

 

Of course I do, and I've responded to it on that basis. Whether you feel this spending is the correct spending is a matter of personal opinion and we will have to agree to disagree. But there is no objective basis for manifest agreement here, as you claim by raising the "cable television" concept.It's a matter of judgement, weighing the cost of international disparagement against the cost of paying these bills. I've demonstrated why that's not the case, and you've not refuted the point.

Your point, that a dollar spent in Iraq is going to be the same as a dollar spent anywhere else is not true. Spending in Iraq has implications on things like oil prices, which dictates the market prices of pretty much everything else. Where and how we spend our dollar is critically important.

 

In the first persian gulf, the war (in which us and our allies spend 'only' $60 billion) set of a recession caused by spiked oil prices.

 

I was probably being premature in saying the war is *going to* destroy the economy, but we are dealing with a lot of risk here, and I simply don't feel that it is worth it. You're right about that... I should have been less absolute. And, I need to do more studying about this subject. I've only recently been interested in economics, and it certainly is not an easy subject to tackle. It seems to me, they'll be 300 different opinions in room full of 100 economists. I happen to be currently reading the arguments made by those against the war.

 

Where treading into unknown waters here, I've seen economist use the 'house of cards' analogy, and I think it's apt.

[Pangloss]

Well I give you credit for consistency. I imagine that if I raised the spectre of the new economic stiumulous package, which if applied quarterly as some lawmakers have requested could easily cost in excess of what we're spending in Iraq, you would shrug and say that you disagree with that spending as well. But it's quite relevent -- some people want money spent over here, others want it spent over there. But in the end, a dollar spent in Iraq has exactly the same impact on the deficit as a dollar spent on Aunt Edna's peanut farm. I put it in big bold, red letters so you don't miss the point this time.

 

In response to your reply regarding changing the subject, ecoli, we aren't discussing economics, we're discussing responsibility and world politics. You don't feel we need to do anything further to help Iraq. That's your opinion and more power to you, but I've shown that there are consequences for that action. It's not a simple matter of economics, but if economics are a concern, we CAN afford it, and I've backed up that statement as well.

[iNow]

Pangloss - Your oversimplified example about a dollar on Iraq versus a dollar on AE's peanuts ignores where the dollar will end up later... The reinvestment of that dollar, and where that reinvestment occurs, is of the utmost importance in discussions such as this.

 

At least the dollar spent on the peanut farm may go toward buying apples on the neighboring apple farm which might go towards buying machines from the local machine shop which may go towards buying food for the machinist's children which... you get the point.

 

Where money is spent WILL impact the deficit differently if viewed in macro terms.

 

 

 

And as for responsibility and world politics, they didn't seem to matter when we invaded Iraq in the first place. Let's at least be consistent in our rhetoric and typecasting of those with differing views.

[ParanoiA]

Wait a second...

 

I took issue with this same paragraph earlier, and then ecoli took issue with it in reference to changing the subject:

One of the things that people don't seem to realize is that international politics is a complex game with very experienced players. We need to be playing that game, not sticking our heads in the sand about it. When we step up to the table we can play it as well or better than anybody else on the planet. We need to ENGAGE. When our international reputation flounders, we have to FIGHT that. Not because it's a bad thing for people to dislike us, but because this isn't the kiddie pool -- these countries are playing for KEEPS, and we are target numero uno on everybody's list. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. THAT's the world we live in, guy.

 

You told me:

I didn't say that it did. Ecoli and I weren't discussing military action, we were discussing economic action following main military withdrawl from Iraq.

 

But you just told him:

In response to your reply regarding changing the subject, ecoli, we aren't discussing economics, we're discussing responsibility and world politics.

 

So, what exactly are you discussing?

 

Honestly, I thought you were expanding beyond economics and immediate withdrawal.

 

Oh, and I'll take "get out of the way", over leading and following the rest of the world.

[Pangloss]

What brought up this discussion was a point I raised in response to iNow saying that I believe we have an obligation to continue to fund Iraq's economic recovery after the majority of our troops pull out and we cease broad enforcement of the peace there. I was talking about obligations and international perceptions and fighting the Great Game on the world stage.

 

Ecoli raised economics, stating that he doesn't believe we can afford it, and I've refuted that point -- certainly we spend a lot of money, certainly we need to spend less, but it's erroneous to state -- as Ecoli did -- that we cannot afford it, or that Iraq *itself* is causing the budget deficit. Any number of budgetary items could be construed to be "causing the deficit".

 

Pangloss - Your oversimplified example about a dollar on Iraq versus a dollar on AE's peanuts ignores where the dollar will end up later... The reinvestment of that dollar, and where that reinvestment occurs, is of the utmost importance in discussions such as this.

 

At least the dollar spent on the peanut farm may go toward buying apples on the neighboring apple farm which might go towards buying machines from the local machine shop which may go towards buying food for the machinist's children which... you get the point.

 

Where money is spent WILL impact the deficit differently if viewed in macro terms.

 

Wrong, I've supported his having this opinion in my responses. I've simply pointed out that it does not provide objective grounds for stating that we cannot afford to pay for Iraq, which is an accurate observation.

 

 

And as for responsibility and world politics, they didn't seem to matter when we invaded Iraq in the first place.

 

Quite right, it most certainly did not, and it absolutely should have. We were told that it would cost -- what was it, a hundred billion? Two hundred at the most? It's outrageous. Unbelievable. Ridiculous. Insert your favorite adjective here. But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

Rather than throwing straw men around, how about enlightening us with your position, iNow? If the Iraqis met our deadlines (as you described earlier) and we pulled out troops, would you then cut them off cold, or continue to offer financial assistance? I find it difficult to believe that you would be opposed to spending federal funds on such a progressive cause.

 

I've no idea if this applies to you or not, but I'll bet a lot of liberals are being conspicuously silent on this issue because they get to use it either way later on. If we pull out and cut them off, they can say that we should not have cut them off, and once again we've flouted international consensus. If we pull out and keep paying, they can criticize how that money is spent and if the violence returns, they can say that we're paying for violence.

 

 

Let's at least be consistent in our rhetoric and typecasting of those with differing views.

 

Apf. Whatever you say, Mr. Pot.

[iNow]

Rather than throwing straw men around, how about enlightening us with your position, iNow?

If we stay, we are just delaying the inevitable. Leave now, like we should have done years ago, to save lives and money.

 

The rest is ulterior motives and fluffy rhetoric. The goal posts keep moving, and I'm no Charlie Brown so I'm gonna stop kicking at the football just because Lucy keeps asking me to.

 

 

Sometimes tough love is needed, and I'm tired of our allowing the Iraqi government to suck off the tit of my tax dollars when we have more than enough problems going unaddressed at home.

 

 

 

 

 

How many times are we supposed to keep kicking at that football?

 

 

 

 

I've simply pointed out that it does not provide objective grounds for stating that we cannot afford to pay for Iraq, which is an accurate observation.

It might be more appropriate, instead of discussing what we can *afford*, to discuss what it *costs.* That way, you can discuss more than just the economics.

[DrDNA]

It costs about $487,177,911,000 when I pasted this but it will have gone up a hell of a lot more by the time you read it.

 

About $275 million per day

$4,100 per household

Almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed and more than 60,000 wounded

700,000 Iraqis killed and 4 million refugees

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

Follow the and watch the numbers go up....it is amazingly fast.

 

And this is kind of self explanatory.....

 

 

Proposed Discretionary Budget, FY2008

The following chart shows the breakdown of the proposed federal discretionary budget for fiscal year 2008 by function area.

 

The discretionary budget refers to the part of the federal budget proposed by the President, and debated and decided by Congress each year. This part of the budget constitutes more than one-third of total federal spending. The remainder of the federal budget is called 'mandatory spending.' Fiscal year 2008 will run from October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008.

 

Note that this chart includes the war-related spending requested by the administration as supplemental to the regular budget proposal.

 

 

Source: Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2008, Analytical Perspectives, Table 27-1.

 

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Proposed+Discretionary+Budget

 

Summary of War-related Request for FY2008

FY2008 Request (in billions)

Department of Defense

Total DoD Requested (Feb., July, Oct.) $189.3

Of which will be spent on Iraq $151.8

 

While Osama is elsewhere......

 

Other Agencies*

February Request $3.6

Of which will be spent on Iraq $3.2

October Amendment $3.6

Of which will be spent on Iraq $0.5

 

TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL SPENDING $196.5

TOTAL IRAQ-RELATED WAR SPENDING $155.5

*Other agency spending for Iraq includes: U.S. Coast Guard ($223 million), Diplomatic and Consular Porgrams ($2.1 billion), Migration and Refugee Assistance ($195 million), Economic Support Fund ($797 million), International Narcotics Control and Enforcement ($159 million), International Disaster and Famine Assistance ($80 million), Office of Inspector General ($35 million), Contributions to International Organizations ($27 million), and USAID ($45.8 million).

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Publications/More-War-Funding-Requested-Updated-2.html

[ecoli]

Ecoli raised economics, stating that he doesn't believe we can afford it, and I've refuted that point -- certainly we spend a lot of money, certainly we need to spend less, but it's erroneous to state -- as Ecoli did -- that we cannot afford it, or that Iraq *itself* is causing the budget deficit. Any number of budgetary items could be construed to be "causing the deficit".

 

Except when we compare spending before and after Iraq (or 9/11, for that matter) we can see that the areas in which the spending has increased the most is defense, especially due to war.

 

Now, my problem with most neoconservatives is that they always go on about cutting spending, but don't seem to realize the largest about of spending is going overseas and to defense.

I don't believe this spending is necessary or that anyone can call themselves fiscally conservative and not see a need to drastically scale back operations overseas.

 

Also, where and how we spend our dollars does have real economic consequences, so the your argument that a 'dollar is a dollar' does not make sense, when you consider the wider economic consequences... which considering that we are potentially at the edge a recession, would be a smart thing to do.

[Pangloss]

Also, where and how we spend our dollars does have real economic consequences, so the your argument that a 'dollar is a dollar' does not make sense, when you consider the wider economic consequences... which considering that we are potentially at the edge a recession, would be a smart thing to do.

 

There are two points that I think you owe me acknowledgement on, just as I've acknowledged your points (such as the fact that we're spending way too much money on Iraq), before I will drop this:

 

1) There is a valid point to be acknowledged here about responsibility and international perception. If you want to disagree with its importance, fine, but you can at least acknowledge my opinion. You think the economic impact outweighs the responsibility and perception issues, and/or that we cannot afford it, great, more power to you. I disagree.

 

2) I repeat: But in the end, a dollar spent in Iraq has exactly the same impact on the deficit as a dollar spent on Aunt Edna's peanut farm. The DEFICIT. You know, the thing YOU BROUGHT UP. If you want to talk about wider economic consequences, fine, but YOU BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF IRAQ ON THE DEFICIT. If you want to talk about two-faced neocons, fine, but YOU BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF IRAQ ON THE DEFICIT. If you want to talk about increases in spending and their impact in various areas, fine, but YOU BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF IRAQ ON THE DEFICIT. Then when I reply on that subject, you act like you never said it, and spin my reply to mean something you know full well I didn't mean.

[iNow]

2) I repeat: But in the end, a dollar spent in Iraq has exactly the same impact on the deficit as a dollar spent on Aunt Edna's peanut farm. The DEFICIT. You know, the thing YOU BROUGHT UP. If you want to talk about wider economic consequences, fine, but YOU BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF IRAQ ON THE DEFICIT. If you want to talk about two-faced neocons, fine, but YOU BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF IRAQ ON THE DEFICIT. If you want to talk about increases in spending and their impact in various areas, fine, but YOU BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF IRAQ ON THE DEFICIT.

 

As has been (at least tangentially) several times mentioned before, you are referring only to "acute deficit," not "sustaining" or "long-term" deficit.

 

Where that dollar is reinvested after it has initially been spent has a HUGE impact on the future economic state and sustainability.

 

It's true that a dollar spent on flowers leaves my wallet just as empty as a dollar flushed down the toilet, but the fact that the woman who sold me the flowers will now use that dollar for other commerce (she will reinvest it into the same economy from which it was pulled) MUST be considered when viewing economic sustainability, economic sustainability being the point on which this entire discussion has been based.

[Pangloss]

I recognize that point, but the point I was refuting from ecoli was that money spent on Iraq is, specifically, in and of itself, causing the deficit. That point is not supported by what you're saying above.

[iNow]

I recognize that point, but the point I was refuting from ecoli was that money spent on Iraq is, specifically, in and of itself, causing the deficit. That point is not supported by what you're saying above.

 

If that's your perception of what ecoli is saying then I think you're reading his posts differently than I am... I would accuse of strawman, but it appears to be an honest mistake you're making.

 

I just reread this thread, and I think he's been clear. He is not suggesting that the money spent in Iraq is the only thing leading to deficit ("money spent on Iraq is, specifically, in and of itself, causing the deficit" as you just paraphrased him).

 

 

Like I said... seems a blatant strawman, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask why this is your perception of his posts... maybe offer some specific quotes to support your perception.

[Pangloss]

Bolds are mine, to answer your question:

 

I believe the politicians have a moral obligation to americans to bring the troops home' date=' [b']in order to save the economy[/b].

 

The way I see it, we aren't going to be able to afford the war for too much longer.

 

But, the reality, is that we can't afford the war...

 

How can we afford it, when we're funding it with inflation and borrowing?

 

Can you demonstrate, for me, that the Iraq war is not causing current inflationary, devaluing dollar, etc, because I honestly don't see how you reckon war spending won't hurt our economy.

 

 

More to the point, all he has to do is say "yes I realize that other funding could be cut to pay for the war, so it was incorrect to state that we cannot afford it".

[iNow]

Okay, I still don't see how you think he's stated "the only thing making our deficit is the war in Iraq," but I'll just walk away at this point so you can continue pissing at men made of straw.

[Realitycheck]

To me, it all seems to be kind of a moot point. The populace hates being in this war and mostly want to get out of it at the soonest feasible point. Bush knows this. We already have generals claiming that Iraq should be mostly self-sufficient by the end of 2008, even if some in Iraq disagree. The Prime Minister already iterated that they would be able to deal with it.

 

Annual defense spending has more than doubled since 1999, from 262 billion to 549 billion. One estimate on the total cost of the Iraq war, so far, runs about 500 billion. The bottom line is that it effects our budget, it affects the deficit. Since the deficit has not been plunging dramatically, something else has been done to balance the effects. It is notable that no big cuts in the budget have been made in other depts. in order to finance the war, somehow. Most likely, it has been supplemented by national debt and additional revenue, but everybody knows that it cannot go on forever. We borrowed 500 billion dollars in 2007 alone. However, we are already going through the motions of withdrawal.

 

2007 Expenditures

 

* $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security

* $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]

* $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare

* $367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare

* $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related

* $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt

* $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training

* $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation

* $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits

* $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice

* $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment

* $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs

* $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture

* $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development

* $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology

* $23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy

* $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2007

[ecoli]

Bolds are mine, to answer your question:

 

 

 

More to the point, all he has to do is say "yes I realize that other funding could be cut to pay for the war, so it was incorrect to state that we cannot afford it".

 

Yes, obviously we could get the money by cutting other sources of spending. I thought I agreed to that early on.

Of course, we are not cutting spending in many places, but rather raising the deficit to fund the federal budget (a large part of which is defense). Therefore we can't afford the proposed federal budget due to, in my opinion, the large proposed and realized increases in defense spending.

 

Just because we could do something doesn't mean that we should. I'd rather see cutting spending overseas happen before we cut domestic spending.

[Pangloss]

I appreciate that and I respect your opinion on it. There, iNow, I'm all out of pee.

[iNow]

I appreciate that and I respect your opinion on it. There, iNow, I'm all out of pee.

 

FINALLY! Now, can we all have a beer in order to refill our bladders?