Originally Posted by Fedaykin
Nope, I don't dispute the accuracy of the figures they give for DIRECT costs. What butthead posted simply didn't include the INDIRECT costs. I you had half a ****ing clue -- about anything -- this wouldn't even be a point of argument.
Here's the main problem with your argument though. The study on the site you linked doesn't present information supporting your position.
You said that the current deficit spending is a result of military/war spending in Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan if you consider that "Bush's War" as well) And to back that up you cited a number meant to establish (credibly or not) a true long-term cost of the war(s) in question.
But what you fail to realize is you're not making a long-term cost argument. You're making a "this is why we've had trillion dollar deficits for the last four years" argument.
The main difference between the CBO number and your cherry-picked number is that the CBO number is an accurate representation of what's ALREADY BEEN spent, while your number is an estimate of that hard CBO number plus what MIGHT BE spent some time in the future, due to obligations possibly brought on by the war(s)
Unfortunately (for your point), money yet to be spent cannot be blamed for current or past deficits. Sure, there's a broader argument to be had about the total cost of the wars over the long run. But in relation to what you said, that debate is a red herring. Those two wars had relatively little to do with why our current federal budget is so far out of control.