View Single Post
Old 02-03-2013, 01:30 PM   #94
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,929

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Here's the main problem with your argument though. The study on the site you linked doesn't present information supporting your position.
Talking about all the direct+indirect costs, and citing research papers explaining where the numbers came from doesn't support my position? That's... hilariously idiotic.

Quote:
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.
No, I said that

a.) The cost of the warmongering in the last decade is much more than the anual deficit

AND

b.) That the bulk of (not the totality of) the current deficit is due to defense spending. Please actually respond to what I say no just tilt at strawmen.

The former I cite a well respected university, the latter is just simple math and a functional understanding of the budget. Would you like to see the details of that math?

Quote:
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.
No, like I've said half a dozen times, the number the CBO has is money handed to the DoD, which does not represent the full cost of the war, since the DoD budget does not include any indirect costs.

Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? Are you being purposefully obtuse? Do you just not have enough integrity to admit that you were mistaken in your assumption that the cost of the wars = the money given to the DoD?


Tell me this: How much money did the U.S. spend on defense in 2012? Do you understand the federal budget and what all the expenditures in various line items are about to figure that out? Hint: The DoD got a little over $700 billion, but that does NOT represent the total spending on defense in 2012 -- not even close.

Also tell me this: If I buy a house for $200,000 and have a mortgage at a rate that I incur $150,000 of interest and pay $750/yr in home insurance, how much did that house cost me?

a.) $200,000
b.) $372,500
c.) something else
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote