View Single Post
Old 02-04-2013, 09:00 PM   #11
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,067

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's clear to me you don't have even a basic understanding of the study you cited. That study is attempting to calculate costs we might pay 20 or 30 years from now. They're not talking about what impacted the 2011 or 2012 federal budgets.
Complete and utter bullsh*t. The study details direct & indirect costs through 2011 and the direct costs through 2012 -- totaling $3T or more. It also talks about future spending of course, which is where the $4T+ figure comes from.

It also goes into depth about other things like opportunity costs, etc. that are not included in those totals.

Look at the big summary table: It's lays it out in a nice fashion that even an idiot should be able to understand.

http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

Of course, getting back to the start of this, remember we're comparing the total cost of the wars to the total cost of the current deficit.

Quote:
There's no sane way to blame war spending for a trillion dollars a year of debt.
Nope, which is why I didn't even try to blame the entire deficit on it. Again, dig deep for the honesty necessary to respond to what I'm actually saying and stop tilting at strawmen. It's not helping your case.

Quote:
The CBO details what has been paid in detail. The only argument is what might have to be paid in the future. But that has zero to do with what was already paid. There's only one purposefully obtuse person in this conversation.
No, the CBO details the money directed specifically to the Department of Defense, which does not represent all the expenditures related to war spending. Why can't/won't you recognize that?

Again, I've provided you the information that lays it out, which includes all of already spent funds, currently obligated funds, and likely future expenditures.

Quote:
You could literally disband the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces completely, and we'd still be running hefty deficits. That's how delusional you are.

..snip...
So in other words my assumption was correct. You have not the slightest clue about the actual amount of money spent on defense per year (and again, tilting at a strawman argument). The DoD budget only represents about 2/3 of total defense spending.

Again I ask, would you like to see the break down? You can easily google the information or simply read up about what purposes various department and agencies fulfill. For example, the Department of Energy has an explicitly defense related task of maintaining the nuclear arsenal, and NASA does military R&D, and the Department of the Treasury pays military pensions. None of that defense related spending comes from the DoD budget.

You could also search the forum, I've posted about it several times.

Quote:
You specialize in irrelevant questions. We're comparing borrowed money to borrowed money here. Sweating interest payments on one side but not the other is disingenuous. What do you reckon the interest payments on the 6 trillion in debt we've added since 2009 is going to cost? Far more than any interest on 1.4 trillion in war spending.
Nah, you specialize in non sequitors. The purpose of the question was to see if you had the honestly and understanding necessary to recognize direct and indirect costs outside the context of defense spending. Instead you go off on a non sequitor trying to imply that I'm holding some double standard about interest payments, which I'm not.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote