BigRob, et al,
I may not agree, entirely, with "WolfLarsen's" comment; but to deny the cost of wars and military conflicts is a bit unreasonable.
I denied no such thing -- I denied the absurd assertion that wars "practically bankrupteded us."
Wars (military conflicts, preparations, and logistical efforts) cost money. And that money is only a piece of the cost (excluding the issue of lives). Iraq and Afghanistan, indeed most of the hegemonic effort in the Middle East, was borrowed money with interest, over and above general tax revenue. And it was not a capital investment. They is absolutely no reasonable expectation of a return. While the infrastructure in America constantly grows weaker, and budget outlays are diverted from homeland improvements, the economy becomes circulates less cash domestically, the ability of Americans to pay taxes supporting armed military adventures, becomes more and more difficult.
These wars are drains to the taxpayer for which there is no replenishment. And we are not talking about a couple of million dollars, or even a couple of billion dollars. We are talking about a factor of a 100 times more (a Trillion Dollars); the US federal debt is about $10 Trillion Dollars (Gross National Debt is about $14 Trillion).
The cost is there. We just don't look at it.
It is simply parroting the tired rhetoric of Obama:
From a previous State of the Union:
"We had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program." - President Obama.
The problem, of course, is that his entire argument is arbitrary -- and he simply picks programs he doesn't like, blames them for our financial problems and ignore ones he does like.
From the
WSJ:
"First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program were implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit stood at only $161 billion. How could these stable policies have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning in 2009? (Obviously what happened was collapsing revenues from the recession along with stimulus spending.)
Second, the president's $8 trillion figure minimizes the problem. Recent CBO data indicate a 10-year baseline deficit closer to $13 trillion if Washington maintains today's tax-and-spend policies—whereby discretionary spending grows with the economy, war spending winds down, ObamaCare is implemented, and Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, and the Medicare "doc fix" (i.e., no reimbursement cuts).
Under this realistic baseline, the 10-year cost of extending the Bush tax cuts ($3.2 trillion), the Medicare drug entitlement ($1 trillion), and Iraq and Afghanistan spending ($515 billion) add up to $4.7 trillion. That's approximately one-third of the $13 trillion in baseline deficits—far from the majority the president claims.
Third and most importantly, the White House methodology is arbitrary.
With Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine which policies "caused" the $13 trillion deficit? Mr. Obama could have just as easily singled out
Social Security ($9.2 trillion over 10 years), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion), net interest on the debt ($6.1 trillion), or nondefense discretionary spending ($7.5 trillion).
There's no legitimate reason to single out the $4.7 trillion in tax cuts, war funding and the Medicare drug entitlement. A better methodology would focus on which programs are expanding and pushing the next decade's deficit up."
As summed up by the article:
"Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020." Even if we did not go to war -- we would be looking at trillion dollar deficits and skyrocketing debt -- it simply does not add up to argue the wars are the cause.
