Is the Iraq War a Financial Burden to the USA

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Oct 17 2006, 06:32 PM) [snapback]334217[/snapback]</div>

Now you are the one being absurd. Words have various connotations that change with the context in which they are used. And while load and burden have similar meanings in certain contexts, they typically connote different different levels of degree. Load has a neutral connotation, while burden typically has a negative connotation.

You used the first definition you found in the dictionary, while ignoring the other eight. The context of the definition that you chose does not match the context of the question posed by this thread.

The definition you chose was "1. that which is carried; load: a horse's burden of rider and pack." Another example of this definition is "beast of burden".

Perhaps a better match to the context of dbermanmd's question was the second definition "2. that which is borne with difficulty; obligation; onus: the burden of leadership."

Or perhaps the seventh ,"7. to load heavily.", or the eigth, "8. to load oppressively; trouble."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 18 2006, 07:59 AM) [snapback]334353[/snapback]</div>

I already did, ask an obtuse question....

 

Another shrub apologist explaining how massive national debt is actually a *good* thing.
How times have changed.

Wars drain economies (and empires, for that matter), unless technologial innovation spurs growth.

 

If I take a pay cut and go on a spending spree with credit cards, I won't feel a burden right now, but I will right now. That's where this country is right now. An individual may not feel the burden of the war now, but they will in the future. If the deficit keeps increasing, it will eventually reach a point where all government revenue goes to paying the interest on that debt. Then what do we do when the next war/ national emergency strikes and there is no money in the coffers and bankers say our credit's no good?

The 2007 budget is still being debated, so the numbers aren't available. However, funding for the war isn't been on the white house's budget and it hasn't been there in the past.

I couldn't find any links on who the Us is borrowing from in a quick search, but I understand China is a big lender.

 

Percentage of GDP is only one way of looking at federal deficit. In inflation adjusted dollars it's one three high peaks in the past 20 years
http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/

New thing I learned today, debt and deficit are two different beasts. Yes, the deficit is shrinking as a percentage. Some of that Rep. finacial sense might actually exist. The debt though is increasing. Thus the interest payments will increase, which will canibalize the increase in govt. revenue.

Now if the Iraq war isn't on the official budget, and is being paid through resolutions as it is now, does it show up in the official?
Where does the money for the defense appropriation bills come from? The government isn't just printing more.
In WWII, citizens willing made sacrifices and lent directly to the govt. with war bonds.

Another table to gander at:
http://www.federalbudget.com/

But the question is about the Irag 'war'. How does that cost go towards defending oneself? If defense is a concern, then the money is better invested in security, intelligence, and response preparedness.

 

US GDP has indeed increased the past couple of years, but attributing it to the shrub tax cuts is republican talking points drivel.

Factor out the housing appreciation boom that kept consumer spending up (that may become a bust), outsourcing that has increased corporate profits but gutted the low middle class, lowering of capital gains taxation rates hat has led to a transient re-equilibration of capital (and tax revenue bump during the transition), and subsidy of federal debt by asia that until now has freed up local capital for investment in industry rather than debt bonds, and you will have a more realistic picture of the mess the US is in --

compounded by unfunded wars and medicare.

So yes, the Iraq debacle is a financial nighmare, but that has been obscured a bit by the other aspects of the economy. At least obscured if you are a republican who cannot or will not think beyond talking points fed to him by BS artists.

btw, PM me with you bank account numbers. Don't worry, the money will stay in the US, so it is not like you have lost it all.

 

(Amended)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Oct 18 2006, 05:38 AM) [snapback]334370[/snapback]</div>

You're correct that burden connotes some degree of a load. However, I was referencing the denotation of the word burden. Burden denotes any load. Therefore, my assertion was correct. Perhaps you think it was nitpicky, but it was correct. And in debates the denotation of words is paramount. The problem is that the word burden can have varying degrees of interpretation. How much of a burden are you talking about? Small burden? A large burden? Any burden?

What I'm saying is that the original question "Is the Iraq War a Financial Burden to the USA?" is a vague question because of the use of the word burden. As I've already argued, $1 can be considered a burden. $300billion can certainly be considered a burden. Your rebuttals (yours and the OP) suggest that you would argue that the $300billion is somehow offset by either technological innovation (that's quite the indirect and falacious connection, it seems to me) or some other means (I'm still waiting for the Iraqi oil fields to start paying for the war, personally).

[rant]
The fact is that a war is expensive, no matter how you want to mince words or statistics. This war is particularly expensive because we don't even have the benefit of having the rest of the world picking up some of the slack. It's expensive because it has lasted WAAAAAY longer than we were told it would (Bush keeps asking Congress for billions more and the Republican Congress keeps giving it to him. Just whose money do you think that is they're spending?). It's expensive because the Iraqi oil fields have not paid for it, as was proffered way back when. It's expensive because the war planners clearly did not have a very comprehensive strategy to invade the country (not accounting for potential lawlessness, looting Iraqi national treasures, banks, Hussein's escape into the countryside, etc). It's expensive because the Iraqis mostly didn't want us there to begin with and we didn't bother to win their hearts and minds before invading their country, so now we have to deal with an insurrection. It's expensive because Americans have become so incredibly ignorant and stupid that we have no idea what kind of culture and history Iraqis have and we insist on forcing our version of a government and culture on them. What an arrogant empire.

The original poster asked the question as though he/she was some impartial person who just wants to know. We have since found out that he/she is just another partisan hack. He/she picks and chooses which answers to respond to and which answers are "acceptable". Whatever. I'm an Independent precisely because of the extreme, contradicting views that each party has and because of people like yourselves, who argue vociferously for only one side or another, not accounting for actual facts or reason or consideration of the other person's point of view. It's always "yer with us or yer against us"....there's almost never an in between. Good grief, people, stop being mindless lemmings for your parties and start being individual thinkers.

It should be obvious to everyone that the Iraq War is a financial burden to the U.S.

To argue otherwise is to embarrass yourself and make clear your inability to think rationally.
[/rant]

Vince

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 18 2006, 09:26 AM) [snapback]334412[/snapback]</div>

This is another lie! Please stop it with the lies!!!!!

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._National_Debt

Please do a bit of fact-checking! It's not that hard!

This may be of interest to you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 18 2006, 12:34 PM) [snapback]334560[/snapback]</div>

And what does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Jeeeeez!

 

Some interesting excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._National_Debt

"In 2003 $318 billion was spent on interest payments servicing the debt, out of a total tax revenue of $1,952 billion."

So THIS is where a good chunk of MY taxes are going.

And this:

"Consequences of foreign ownership of U.S. debt

"U.S. Treasury statistics indicate that, at the end of 2004, foreigners held 44% of federal debt held by the
public. About 64% of that 44% was held by the central banks of other countries. A large portion was
held by the central banks of Japan and China, although, most was held by members of the EU. This
exposes the United States to potential financial or political risk that either banks will stop buying Treasury
securities or start selling them heavily. In fact, the debt held by Japan reached a maximum in August of
2004 and has fallen nearly 3% since then.

"On 3 August 2006, Italy's central bank announced that it would sell off a large portion of its dollar holdings
(including US Treasury bonds) and instead shift to British Pound Sterling. The reason Italy gave for doing
out of fear of an "expected slide in the dollar." Russia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates had
announced similar shifts out of the dollar into other currencies and gold earlier and cited the United States's
"twin deficits" (i.e. the US trade deficit as well as its budget deficit) as the reason for the expected fall in the
dollar's value."

 

Here's another nice tidbit for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

'On May 17, 2006 Kiplinger's Personal Finance reported that, based on Cheney's financial disclosures, his "...financial advisers are apparently betting on a rise in inflation and interest rates and on a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies."'

Even Cheney is betting that the economy is in for a tank!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 18 2006, 10:34 AM) [snapback]334560[/snapback]</div>

I am unimpressed with your attempt to appear intellectual and reasoned. You have already made it clear that you are, instead, partisan. Ergo, my comment about you being a partisan hack (hack being used loosely as a reference to writing). That's not a personal attack...it's my opinion of your political motivations for even asking the question. You're credibility at the outset was questionable and you only damaged it further by mostly ignoring those people who did answer your question.

I answered your question. But I'm surmising that you won't likely respond to those answers because you'd rather pretend that you're actually looking for factual evidence that supports whether the Iraq War is a Financial Burden to the USA or not (evidence that I'm not inclined to spend my time looking up just to prove you, or other war supporters, wrong). It is apparent that you are, in actuality, only rhetorically asking the question in an effort to prove that critics of the war do not have valid reasons for being against the war. And perhaps that's true, though common sense compels me to doubt that.

The general consensus in this country is that the Iraq War has cost the United States a certain large amount of money ($300billion or more, by most accounts), therefore becoming, by definition, a financial burden. The inability of the White House or Congress to refute those claims would seem to support the assumption that the war is, indeed, a financial burden to the country. If it were otherwise, then certainly they would have the motivation to argue, were it true, that the war is actually paying for itself (as you seem to be implying). They have made no such argument. Therefore, they do not believe it to be true. That means that the war is almost certainly a financial burden to the country. As such, the obvious answer to your question is YES.

I challenge you to show any hard evidence that the war is somehow paying for itself. In fact, I challenge you to even generally argue the case for why this war is not a financial burden to the U.S.

I don't think you can, but I'm curious to know what arguments you may have to offer.

Regarding my $1 or $300billion argument: Read what I wrote about the difference between connotation and denotation. The point was that the word burden does not specify a particular amount of financial debt...only that some level of debt has occurred, which a $1 war would incur just as a $300billion war. Your wording of the question was unfortunate in that it left itself to a very wide interpretation as to what a burden is. Obviously I'm not suggesting that there is a comparison between a $1 war and a $300billion war, and you know that. I'm asserting that, by the denoted definition of the word burden, if the war costs even $1 then it's technically a financial "burden." You should have used a better term to more clearly denote what you meant.

Vince

 

"a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies."

This is a no brainer. Economists like Stephen Roach have been saying the US dollar is highly overvalued for years. The enormous level of the debt just makes it that much more likely there will be a run on the dollar which would precipitate a global crisis. Just another cost of the war in Iraq.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 18 2006, 09:50 AM) [snapback]334425[/snapback]</div>

So is it the national debt or the deficit that's supposedly near historic low as a percentage of GDP?
If you're talking about the deficit, this lie was already debunked yesterday, at http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=25384&st=40 (see post #44). I already proved it was a lie and you continue to state it as fact!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 18 2006, 02:58 PM) [snapback]334635[/snapback]</div>

That's ok. As one of Bush's acolytes, he asks us to accept his arguments based on faith, not evidence. If you have enough faith, you will believe.