|
joether -> RE: US Deficits / Debt (11/12/2013 3:01:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
So many errors. Direct spending on the Iraq war as of end of last year was $757billion. Sooooo you're off by a factor of 3.
Your number is for iran, arghanistan and other operations and includes high speculative numbers into the future for the care of veterans, and inflated estimates on interest.
And where does this $757 Billion number come from exactly? Your here bitching at me to cite source material and YOU cant even put your own money where your mouth is in the same sentence? That number of yours is not even remotely close to the actual number. According to Reuters a 2013 study found the cost of both wars (Iraq taking the grand majority of costs) to be $3.7 trillion. With another $6 trillion paid out over four decades due to all the wounds inflicted upon US soldiers and civilians. The major cost in the two wars, Iraq, was drawn down when President Obama took office. Afghanistan persisted for a short time there after. Since Afghanistan was the 'cheaper' of the two wars, most people label the costs as 'The Iraq War'.
Wikipedia has a summary of equipment lost in Iraq:
80 M1 Abrams tanks
55 M2 Bradley fighting vehicles
20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles
20 M113 armored personnel carriers
250 Humvees
500+ Mine clearing vehicles, heavy/medium trucks, and trailers
10 Assault Amphibious Vehicles
109 Helicopters
18 Fixed-Wing Aircraft
How much do you suppose it costs the nation to buy just one M1 Abrams? Stock it up, crew it, ship it to Iraq and maintain its fighting status? And this is just the equipment that was.....lost.....not shipped there and back along with supplies and support personnel. Not to mention operations on a daily basis for seven years. Do you know how much 'daily operations' cost the USA? About $720 million or $500,000 a second!
So yeah, where the hell does your $757 Billion come from, given that after 100 days of Iraq, this nation spent (according to the Washington Post...a pretty conservative paper I might add) $720 Billion?
Yet......AGAIN.......you show all of us that you just push out absolute bullshit without an ounce of research to justify.....ANYTHING.....you BS about. And when you actually took a few seconds to research, the material ends up destroying your case ANYWAYS!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Secondly - and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
Clinton *did not* balance the budget. The budget hasn't been balanced in decades. Clinton merely took social security spending off book. Poof - it disappeared!
OK, I'm going to explain US Government 101....
In order for Congress (that would be the House and Senate) to pass a bill into law, it MUST go to the President for approval. Unless there exists a sizable majority of 'yay' votes in both halves of Congress to by past the White House all together. Back in '95, the Republicans controlled Congress, but President Clinton was a Democrat. There were enough Democrats in Congress to prevent Republicans from passing a budget bill WITHOUT White House approval. So the Republicans and the White House, not only balanced the bill, but created a surplus for the remaining Clinton years in office (term 2). Go look it up in the history books. One of the things Clinton (and Democrats) did, that he took a HUGE amount of flak from conservatives over was creating more debt. However, its what they did with the money that is not often reported in conservative media. They spent the money buying off outstanding debts and using the lower loan percentage instead. So from the 12% that was being charged to 5%. That would be defined as 'smart business'. Believe it or not, quite a few Republicans helped the Democrats because this was a wise move to make.
President Clinton took Social Security off the Spending Bill and it pass through Congress? By all means, cite your source for this lunatic idea.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Tax revenues are the highest they've ever been. Federal expenditures as % of GDP are the highest they've ever been.
Ben Bernanke says spending has to come down.
I like the bold part there Phydeaux. You know why? Because that is conservative media conditioning the stupid, idiot and foolish conservatives to babbling stuff they don't know what they are talking about. Its a talking point, but only works if someone doesn't challenge you over it. If the tax revenue was the highest it has ever been, then how was the budget balanced before former G. W. Bush took office, five or six tax reductions taken place, and a deficit of nearly $800 Billion in existence? Since a 'balanced budget' means Revenue = Expenses, it would therefore be logical to assume had those tax cuts NOT been put in place there would not only be no deficit but revenues would be MUCH higher. Go ahead, challenge it.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
What creditable reason do you have for suggesting that increasing spending is a good idea?
I resist insulting you when and however I can. Not out of any respect for you, but for the Moderators whom have a VERY tiresome job that gives no thanks to them. So in this regard, not calling you a huge number of insults, even though you rightly deserve them, its being nice and considerate to the Moderators. And I think they will let some of the material go since even THEY shake their heads at how dumb conservatives have allowed themselves to become even as technology provides numerous ways to keep oneself educated (failing that, able to look up stuff easier).
Here is the credible reasoning from Macro Economics (college level): (simplified version)
During any recession in US History, wages and jobs have decreased at a faster rate than they were increasing. The result has been observed to be less consumer spending than in bullish times. Less consumer spending often leads companies to make further cut backs on wages and jobs. Most people can understand how this downward spiral does not correct itself on its own. There is a 'bottom' much like a metaphorical stock price: $0.00 of worth. The US Government in times past has artificially created demand by pouring money into the economy through increased government spending. And it has often worked. 'Fiscal' folks that are dumb rage about this funding, while wise folks realize the spending does create much more good than bad over time.
The Democrats at the outbreak of WW2 used government spending to spur the nation from a very bad economic Depression into a fighting nation. Often not known is the ten years or so before 1941 of what the US Government was doing that modern conservatives overlook. In the years since FDR, this nation has been in various states of economic recession on a national level. Democrats and Republicans, Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives in the past used government spending to get the nation out of recession. The 'Trickle Down Theory' came in as one way to reduce the effects of a recession (known today as 'Supply Side Economics'). It has never been proven to work! In 2007, the national economy was not just sinking towards a recession but by all accounts a Depression.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was pass through a Democratic Controlled Congress and White House. Spending close to a trillion dollars over two years in each of the fifty states of the Union. Republicans opposed this bill in heavy numbers. 'Why?' was the question of the day by most sane people; 'fiscal conservatives' berated the President saying the nation could not afford the cost. Go an look at the nation's health in those two years of the bill. They stopped the downward spiral and evened things out for the most part across each industry. Most economists in 2010 pointed out that if the nation spent another $500 Billion in 2011, the nation would be for the most part, out of a recession.
However, Republicans were against this idea and did everything in their power to convince Americans this was a bad idea. Yeah, try to 'rationalize' this one to us sane people, Phydeaux. The Republican/Tea Party killed the economy for political reasons. They did it again in 2011 and most recently with the Government Shutdown just a few weeks ago. You have a better chance of proving to me in scientific terms that God exists than that the Republican/Tea Party (and all its minions) had the best interest of the WHOLE NATION when it did any of these actions to heart.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
So when you suggest that people get educated in facts and figures, I suggest you start with yourself.
I believe I show it in each post. You however, NEVER seem to have a clue on anything on any thread. You get owned left and right by a dozen different posters on a routine basis. And when I look at the 'problem' it all comes down to you not having a clue on HOW to research or WHEN to research. Why not go to a book store and take out a book on 'US National Economics' for the past ten years. If your having trouble finding it, ask a clerk. I'm ok discussing different viewpoints so long as what is being discussed are the actual events. When challenged, it is often a good idea to cite the source of material. The Macro Economics answer comes from a number of different sources. Not all of them are online. Most of them are not in easy sound bites to babble off on FOX News to the unsuspecting conservative audience. Much of it assumes one holds a fair idea of US History, US Political History and US Economic History. The three are different in their focus on history. One is general, one political and one economical. While they do overlay here and there, they each express concepts not found in the other two.
|
|
|
|
