We may be in another recession already.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Fun example of the epic bull**** being spread here...

Do you realize that the entire VA budget and military pension spending combined doesn't equal $300 billion a year?

Yep, which is why I didn't claim that. As indicated, that $300 is (granted, an off the cuff est) a sum of all of the indirect costs of those wars/yr.

(and btw, VA+pensions comes to about 250bn/yr total).

Pensions: $100bn

And lumping predicted future interest in is nice and all, but in a fair comparison, factoring interest wold increase our trillion dollar budget deficits far more. But I doubt you want to go there.

Nothing about "predicted future interest", some portion of the current interest is due to defense spending. What portion it is, of course, is a hard ting to determine, but you don't rack up trillions (even one) in borrowing without hefty interest payments.

Again, I'm citing Brown which is taking a deep look into direct and indirect costs, and you counter with the CBO that is, by their own admission, only counting DIRECT costs (i.e. funds specifically appropriated to the DoD).

To imply/claim the direct costs are the only costs ( a position to put forward and are apparently still trying to defend -- correct me if I'm wrong) is ****ing ridiculous.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Lulz. "Costofwar.org" vs the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-s...nd-afghanistan

Please tell me now how CBO scoring isn't credible. We can go lots of fun places with that.

People only like to quote the CBO when its what they want to hear. Fed loves to cruise left wing sites and I bet costofwar is one of them.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

People only like to quote the CBO when its what they want to hear. Fed loves to cruise left wing sites and I bet costofwar is one of them.

Ya think?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

People only like to quote the CBO when its what they want to hear. Fed loves to cruise left wing sites and I bet costofwar is one of them.

Moron. I've already pointed out, several times, why the CBO numbers are incomplete.

If you don't have the integrity to actually acknowledge that, then GFY.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Moron. I've already pointed out, several times, why the CBO numbers are incomplete.

If you don't have the integrity to actually acknowledge that, then GFY.

Typical. Change the subject by citing CBO as inaccurate and then call names. Right out of DUMOCRAT 101.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by lonestar

Typical. Change the subject by citing CBO as inaccurate and then call names. Right out of DUMOCRAT 101.

Oh look, the drive by idjit has showed up. I have not claimed the CBO is inaccurate, only that it's incomplete (and explained why).

So I pose the same question: Do you have the integrity to actually acknowledge that?

[lonestar]

Let me add "Figures never lie, but LIARS ALWAYS FIGURE "

Brown U respected by all the far left. Ahahahahahaha

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by lonestar

Let me add "Figures never lie, but LIARS ALWAYS FIGURE "

Brown U respected by all the far left. Ahahahahahaha

Care to point out what you think is wrong with what I am saying, or are you happy just to be a clown?

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Oh look, the drive by idjit has showed up. I have not claimed the CBO is inaccurate, only that it's incomplete (and explained why).

So I pose the same question: Do you have the integrity to actually acknowledge that?

So it is incomplete. Hmm sounds to me that means inaccurate.

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Care to point out what you think is wrong with what I am saying, or are you happy just to be a clown?

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by lonestar

So it is incomplete. Hmm sounds to me that means inaccurate.

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

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.

[lonestar]

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.

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

[Fedaykin]

So we've yet again reconfirmed that lonestar and cutlet have exactly zero integrity. Neither have a ****ing clue about what the cited CBO numbers represent, yet continue to do nothing but drop ad hominem attacks at me.

Dishonest pieces of **** -- both of them.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by lonestar

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

Only one doing nothing but name calling is you bub. You'll want to look up a word: hypocrite

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

So we've yet again reconfirmed that lonestar and cutlet have exactly zero integrity. Neither have a ****ing clue about what the cited CBO numbers represent, yet continue to do nothing but drop ad hominem attacks at me.

Dishonest pieces of **** -- both of them.

As I said. Change the criteria, subject and call names. DUMOCRAT 101.

[TonyR]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110012

[BroncoBeavis]

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.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Those two wars had relatively little to do with why our current federal budget is so far out of control.

Since the costs of those wars were covered with borrowed money, what's been the impact on the interest on the debt?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

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.

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?

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

[cutthemdown]

Anyone who tries to blame the war spending is an idiot. At most maybe it cost a couple trillion dollars over 10-12 yrs even adding in hidden costs. It's a liberal lie that defense spending to blame. They continue to support policies that put a drag on job creation and higher tax revenues.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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.

I tried to keep it civil. You decided to go full herpderp, so here goes.

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?

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. Those numbers are fixed and well known. And the deficits were driven by components much larger than increased defense spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Un...federal_budget

Regular funding for the Department of Defense increased from $513 billion to $518 billion, including a 1.6% pay raise for military personnel. Funding for the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan was reduced from $158 billion to $115 billion.

There's no sane way to blame war spending for a trillion dollars a year of debt.

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?

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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...deral_spending



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.

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

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.

[cutthemdown]

It is ridiculous to blame a current deficit on money that might have to spent in the future to take care of war vets. Its almost like Obama claiming the reduction in iraqi war spending as a budget cut. classic.

The problem is liberal anti business practices from the EPA to the FDA that stifle revenue and money for the govt.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

It is ridiculous to blame a current deficit on money that might have to spent in the future to take care of war vets. Its almost like Obama claiming the reduction in iraqi war spending as a budget cut. classic.

The problem is liberal anti business practices from the EPA to the FDA that stifle revenue and money for the govt.

Whoops coherent thinking going on, in a far left liberal infected thread..

CUT you know better than TO DO that.

[cutthemdown]

I'm not saying that we won't have future costs from the wars i am sure we will but Obama hasn't spent any money on future costs so he can't blame them for any of his economic debt. he's piling it up because his economy stinks and he spends too much money. Mostly though he's piling up debt because the economy stinks. He continues to support energy policies that hurt big industry. he continues to support policies that thwart things like oil pipelines, rare earth mining. His tax policies are dubious at best and his tax on medical device makers is very controversial. Already its costing jobs in America.

Obamacare smacking small business right in the face. In my hometown they thought they would pass a tax on hotels over 100 rooms. They did this buy saying if you have over 100 rooms you have to a minimum of 12 bucks an hour to your fulltime employees.

in the last couple months 4 hotels that ran in the 125 to 150 room just closed down to 99 and laid people off. The poor workers were out picketing one place not really understanding it was the voters who screwed them over. i couldn't believe it when it passed by my city is very liberal. In that same time they turned down an offer to rebuild this area by our waterfront because the builder wanted to go to high and they didn't want over so many stories. Straight turned down like a 300 million dollar project. That is liberals in action right there.

[cutthemdown]

So where is all the money Obama has spent on future war costs Fed? Cmon we would all love to hear where that so called future war money went. Oh let me guess its in the future so Obama hasn't paid for any of that.