Originally Posted by Fedaykin
Complete and utter bullsh*t. The study details direct & indirect costs through 2011 and the direct costs through 2012 -- totaling $3T or more.
Question. Do you read the **** you post?
One of the lines right there adding into your $3T total is
"Projected Obligated Funds for Veterans' Medical and Disability to 2051"
"Social Costs to Veterans and Military Families"
Here, we're not even talking about money paid by the federal government at all. Instead they're trying to stab at a dollar value on the hardship placed on military families. News flash, most legislation of any significance has some social cost. This cost is never factored into whether a bill increases/decreases the federal deficit, because those costs aren't paid out of the federal budget.
This would be like saying Obamacare cost 10 times as much as advertised because we should count all the insurance premiums paid by citizens under the new federal mandate. The government doesn't budget that way. And you're fine with that, so long as it suits you.
But my personal favorite is where your $3T figure (in addition to the bull**** above) factors in the lion's share of Homeland Security spending over the last decade. Apparently TSA screeners and border patrol are Iraq/Afghan theater Veterans now.
The old hiptard line used to be that all that war spending was taking away from much needed Homeland Security budget.
Now though, you're trying to lump it all in as if it was the same thing. How convenient.
You also say you're not factoring in interest. But when you dig into the details of your 'reference' and you see, yup, there it is. Interest costs.
Please, next time you post an article as proof of something, read it first. Try to understand it. Then discuss.