Is the Iraq War a Financial Burden to the USA

Quackerman, please read my earlier replies to this thread. The answers are there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 20 2006, 07:23 AM) [snapback]335452[/snapback]</div>

But Federal outlays are less than Federal income, increasing the deficit. Personally, I don't know how much the outlays would have to be reduced to get them less than the income. But if military spending is around 20% of the budget, that's a 'target' for reduction. (Is there any other sector of the government expenditures that can be described in five words or less? If so, and that sector is spending even 2% of the federal budget, that would be another instant 'target').

NOT having a war in Iraq would reduce some of that spending automatically. (This, of course, requires a magic wand to make the war 'go away' and repair any damages done by it, but that same magic wand should simply wipe out the deficit and feed, clothe and house all the poor of the world, too.)

When companies spend more than they make, they need to finance that debt, and banks will lend the money in the hopes that the investment will yield "product" (as in productivity) which translates to dollars to pay off that debt.

When the US Federal Government spends more than it makes, there's no direct correlation to an increase in 'product' to pay off the debt. And increasing the debt increases the cost of servicing that debt. That's a financial burden right there!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 20 2006, 12:26 PM) [snapback]335632[/snapback]</div>

A healthy and well-educated population is our best defense (against terrorists and extremists of all kinds ).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 20 2006, 12:26 PM) [snapback]335632[/snapback]</div>

Medicare.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 20 2006, 12:26 PM) [snapback]335632[/snapback]</div>

Our lopsided support for Israel against Palestinians.

 

"I would like you to mention ONE thing the government is heavily involved in that is working well, efficiently, would stand to the tests of the open marketplace and competition."

Just compare the US private insurance health care quagmire with Canada's government-run system. Canada spends far less per capita and everyone has full access to health care through a physician of their choice. You never get a medical bill in Canada, period. The US health system is grossly ineffecient. It needs to be scrapped.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 20 2006, 01:26 PM) [snapback]335632[/snapback]</div>

Well, thats easy.

1. Building streets and highways, or
1. Developing water supplies, or
1. Treating and delivering safe drinking water, or
1. Providing sanitation services, or
1. Proving fire protection services, or
1. Providing police services.

These are a few examples of things that are (almost) always provided by government, and that are highly cost effective. There is virtually no large scale exceptions to these. On a very small scale these services can be provided by private enterprise, but the cost is rarely lower.

 

The answer to this whole thread lies in the fact that the original question is flawed. The term "burden" is undefined, and therefore, each individual is left to their own interpretation and conclusion.

dbermanmd defines burden in a way that results in the cost of the war not being a burden. Others define it differently.

The question I would ask is: Is the war in Iraq worth the cost? In my opinion, no. The war in Iraq would not be worth the cost if the cost was $1. I see no net benefit to the war in Iraq. It is a net loser for the US, the Iraqi people and for the "war on terror". So I don't really care if it is a "burden" or not by dbermanmd's definition. In my opinion it is a burden, and would be even if it cost nothing to wage it.

 

No, not unless we ever have to actually pay off the national debt. What do you think, Doctor? Should the US eventually pay, or should we just repudiate it when it gets too burdensome?

Of course, entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security, and the general borrow-and-spend insanity of the last six years, are bankrupting the US even faster than is the war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 20 2006, 03:49 PM) [snapback]335777[/snapback]</div>

Canadian medical coverage costs me $108 a month for a family of four. This covers all appointments, tests, procedures, operations, and hospital stays, with the exception of dentistry, eye exams, and physiotherapy. I might have to wait a bit for the more urgent cases to go in front of me, but nobody's going to go bankrupt by getting sick or injured. Unlike people I know in the US, including family, who have.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 20 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]335658[/snapback]</div>

I personally don't know how the military budget has changed over the last 10 years or so. You say that we've financed the war by keeping the budget about the same but delaying major weapon systems upgrades. Can you cite some references for this? I wasn't aware of this, so I'd like to find out more about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 19 2006, 09:14 AM) [snapback]335007[/snapback]</div>

As far as the 'end' of the Vietnamese War, I don't think that "...the Democratically controlled Congress stopping budgetary allowances..." was the *reason* we ended our "efforts" there, as you suggest.

The reason was that we were supporting a bankrupt regeme for primarily self serving reasons; we'd also drastically underestimated the ability of the 'foreign' opposition (sounds like a touch of xenophobia, actually) while assuming that our capabilities, honed during the cold war, would somehow be appropriate for a completely different and unfamiliar environment.

Does this sound at all familiar?

Rising energy costs during that period didn't help, either. But, to be honest, I'm not sure that economists, even today, fully understand the causes behind inflation (then or now)...or, more accurately, how to control it. The process remains primarily reactive.

In any case (with the possible exception of WWII), funneling funds to the military industrial complex is traditionally not the most effective way to stimulate the domestic economy.

So, while the Vietnamese War may not have been the primary cause of the economic maladies of that period, I do believe it had a negative effect. To what degree? I don't think anyone can say for sure. I certainly can't!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeannie @ Oct 20 2006, 04:11 PM) [snapback]335830[/snapback]</div>

Delaying major weapons system upgrades? I, too, would like some elaboration on this point.

I've been seeing lots of money budgeted for new F-22's, aerial refueling aircraft, upgraded C-17's...we activated the ABM system...what, exactly, are you referring to?

Let me guess...you're thinking about the 'Peace Shield'...space based weaponry...?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 20 2006, 05:29 PM) [snapback]335922[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. That's precisely why he advocates nuking California because he seems to feel we single-handedly were responsible for its demise. He's a little paranoid on this subject. Well, most subjects really.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 20 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]335658[/snapback]</div>

I was intrigued enough by the first statement that I asked for references. I was intrigued enough that I found some myself. I looked for references from the Federal Government itself to minimize bias, and I found this info on websites for the Treasury Department and the White House Offce of Management and Budget.

Since FY2000, military spending has increased about 85%. In the same time period, the federal deficit has increased almost 50%.

I've attached an EXCEL spreadsheet with the data and links to the websites where I got the data.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeannie @ Oct 21 2006, 08:16 AM) [snapback]336060[/snapback]</div>

This is a running theme for quackerman. He can not back up many of his claims because he makes things up. He's simply a shill for the administration, and their "ends justify the means" philosophy, in which the "truth" is unimportant because it gets in the way of their agenda. Watch the Power of Nightmares. It explains a lot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 21 2006, 01:29 PM) [snapback]336120[/snapback]</div>

...and his false information has been uncovered, so he has moved on to other threads where he can spread his misinformation anew....