Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., called for a withdrawal of a report estimating that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost more than $1.5 trillion. Brownback and Rep. James Saxton, R-N.J., issued a joint statement calling the report by staffers on Congress’ Joint Economic Committee “another thinly veiled exercise in political hyperbole masquerading as academic research.†Though it is certainly true that some of the hidden costs included are difficult to quantify — such as the impact of the war on oil prices — it also is undeniable that the estimates released by the White House don’t include major costs — such as the interest expense of paying for a war with borrowed money.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- sursum on Open thread 11/23
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
104 Comments
Given the Senator’s failure to exercise due diligence in overseeing the costs of the war, and his and his Republican colleagues’ feckless use of supplemental bills to fund the war, it’s more than a little hypocritical of him to get religion as budget hawk.
Let Brown-nose show the numbers to be wrong.
Oh please, don’t limit your disgust to the republican side of the aisle:
The House Democrats’ $23 Billion Pork Slush Fund and Spending Spreeby Brian M. RiedlWebMemo #1503
In response to voter outrage over earmark scandals, the House Democratic leadership pledged to bring transparency to the earmark process. Specifically, the House rewrote its rules to require that earmarks be included in the reports that accompany spending bills so that lawmakers can debate earmarks before passing each spending bill. Now, in a remarkable reversal, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) has announced that all earmarks will be kept secret from the American people until after the spending bills have cleared the House of Representatives. Not until soon before spending bills return from the conference committee would the list be released, leaving lawmakers without the chance to debate or amend any earmarks, only to vote up-or-down on entire conference reports. The House Democratic majority should stick to its pledge of transparency and abandon this scheme.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1503.cfm
The Democratic Congress’s 2008 Budget: A Tax and Spending Spreeby Brian M. RiedlBackgrounder #2081
In January, a Democratic congressional majority was sworn in that was elected in part by promising fiscal responsibility. The Democrats specifically pledged to limit spending increases and employ pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting to keep the budget deficit in check.
As their first year moves toward a close, it has become clear that the members of this majority have failed to live up to their promises. In just 10 months, Congress has passed legislation that would increase federal spending by a combined $454 billion over 10 years and raise taxes and fees by $98 billion over 10 years and has passed a budget resolution that would bring the tax increase to a projected $2.7 trillion.[1]
Despite the Democrats’ PAYGO pledge of no new deficit spending, legislation enacted thus far has increased spending much faster than taxes, resulting in an additional $356 billion in deficit spending.—–
Hey Sam, you wouldn’t be trying to cover something up would you? Yes you are, just like a cat in its sandbox, that would be you Sam.
AmWay – while I will agree that we need to also look at the chickenfeed things like you point out we will o better by the budget doing the big ones first.
Yes, pennies are important, but trillions of dollars are much more so.
$1.5 trillion and the “fiscal conservatives” just want to sweep the facts under the rug. How much of America did we have to sell to the Chinese in order to get a military base built on top of an oil field?
“The Democratic Congress’s 2008 Budget: A Tax and Spending Spreeby Brian M. RiedlBackgrounder #2081
The House Democrats’ $23 Billion Pork Slush Fund and Spending Spreeby Brian M. RiedlWebMemo #1503 ”
Amway — that would be another thread —– but without checking I’m gonna guess that during 12-14 years of Republican control of Congress they outspent these Democrats (remember the bridge to nowhere?) by a hefty margin ….. damn em both
Oh, c’mon, “American Way” –
Spare me your outrage.
After years of Republic Party dominance of federal spending… deficit spending, that sent the bills for the Bridge to Nowhere to your grandchildren… you hardly can carp about “tax and spend Democrats.”
To find a Republic Party congressional spending policy that doesn’t guarantee deficit spending you’d have to go back to the William Henry Harrison administration. How many balanced budgets did Ronald Reagan’s administration present to the Congress? How many did Bill Clinton?
On other threads in this forum, people are expressing an admiration for Mike Huckabee’s candidacy. Huckabee who, as Governor of of Arkansas, never met a tax he didn’t raise. And ya know somethin’? That might just be what’s required. I hate paying taxes, but I do get a lot from the taxes I pay. Taxes are the check-out counter for Liberty.
Now, I might resent spending a Trillion-and-a-Half in Iraq, but it seems the strongest democracy on the planet might be wiser at spending money. Like for healthcare, infrastructure, justice, and border protection. You know, instead of a Trillion-and-a-Half to kill people in Iraq?
Every dollar in your wallet is worth less — far less — than before George WMD Bush invaded Iraq. Next time you need gasoline, get out of the car and walk, and send the money directly to Halliburton; eliminate the middle man!
It’d be much more efficent than carping about Democrats trying to redirect this nation’s resources toward issues that really affect the quality of life in America.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who will clean-out this mess.
And the People are beginning to catch on to that fact.
You can’t have it both ways. You are outraged about deficit spending, or you are just outraged that the deficit spending didn’t go to programs you find acceptable.
The deficit is not the result of one President Bush. It is the result of the United States Congress.
“After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”
–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), January 4, 2007.[9]
Fact: The House has already waived its PAYGO rules, and Congress has voted to increase entitlement spending by $179 billion. Offset by the $98 billion in tax increases, these policies would increase the budget deficit by nearly $81 billion.
Runaway entitlement spending represents the most perilous part of the federal budget. Entitlement programs, which automatically grow without limits or oversight, constitute more than 60 percent of the federal budget. Large entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are growing between 7 percent and 12 percent annually. Unless they are reined in, entitlements will eventually consume the entire federal budget or force European-sized tax increases.
In recent years, members of the current Democratic congressional majority regularly derided runaway spending and called for “fiscal discipline” and “substantial curbs, if not cuts, in spending.”[10] They campaigned in 2006 on PAYGO budgeting that would require fully offsetting all new entitlement increases with entitlement cuts or tax increases.[11] They have not held to that standard. Earlier this year, Congress actually voted to ignore PAYGO altogether when allocating new entitlement money to a bill that wouldprovide for congressional representation of Washington, D.C.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2081.cfm
And Ed I would agree with you on that point. In fact, I have spent some time listening to those who tell me I am just throwing my vote away. Since I am voting against someone all the time anyway, it would be nice to just vote for someone with whom I agree in principle – regardless on if he can win.
I think I might feel better after leaving the voting booth if I follow the later thought.
I’ll do it, if he gets the nomination. Those of us in Kansas can send money, but I guess we just get to wait and watch.
I have to laugh at Heritage suddenly becoming concerned about deficits. Where have they been all these years while their boy Bush ran up so much red ink?
Table 4. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006
1993 1,2131994 1,0751995 1,0401996 9741997 8171998 8271999 7962000 758
6 YrTotal 5,946
Total 7,500
2001 8912002 9992003 1,2282004 1,8742005 1,9422006 1,858
Total 8,792
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
So Max; Clinton inherited a high rate; lowered it every year; then Bush increased it.
Clinton killed 7,500 in the military when he was President.
Worst President Ever
Max – BS!
And according to YOU, Bush has killed 8792 – SO FAR!
It would be interesting to see the numbers from Bush 1 and Reagan.
The American People are getting angry when they fill-up their gastanks with the 3 dollar results of someone’s need for unchecked greed and power.
And they can see that the MSM isn’t talking abut it in any meaningful way.
Ron Paul won the New York State straw poll and that was ignored by the MSM. Any other candidate would have been lavished with coverage.
The People are asking themselves why, and ole Ed is telling them why.
Notice, I’m suddenly drawing an excessive amount of Heat?
Max is so cute when he tries to lie with incomparable statistics.
No Ben, he didn’t “inherit” a higher rate.
Clinton desimated the military shrinking the active duty troops, clearly shown on the table.
Clinton failed to respond to terrorists when they attacked America in the 1990’s.
Bush had to respond after the biggest attack.
About 2000 per year under Reagan and Bush 1. So Clinton cut the rate in half.
Year # Troops Deaths Death Rate1993.. 1849537.. 1213.. 0.07%1994.. 1746482.. 1075.. 0.06%1995.. 1661928.. 1040.. 0.06%1996.. 1613310.. 974.. 0.06%1997.. 1578382.. 817.. 0.05%1998.. 1538570.. 827.. 0.05%1999.. 1525942.. 796.. 0.05%2000.. 1530430.. 758.. 0.05%2001.. 1552196.. 891.. 0.06%2002.. 1627142.. 999.. 0.06%2003.. 1732632.. 1228.. 0.07%2004.. 1711916.. 1874.. 0.11%2005.. 1664014.. 1942.. 0.12%2006.. 1664014.. 1858.. 0.11%
Yes CF2K; and it’s cute to see how he changes the subject when his numbers don’t do what he wants them to!
And again I note – the rate went down … and then back up. In fact, it has doubled.
Ben, they’ve been there all along. Even before this Bush’s spending spree:
Historical Federal Spending
Federal spending has increased steadily over the last 40 years. In recent decades, federal spending per household has rarely declined or even held constant. As the Chart Book shows, federal spending per household has grown faster under the George W. Bush Administration than under any administration since Nixon’s and Ford’s. (See Chart S-4.) The federal government now spends over $22,000 per household—nearly an 80 percent increase in inflation-adjusted spending from President Kennedy to President Bush. (See Chart S-3.)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1098.cfm
AmWay – heritage was rather silent during the massive red ink of BushCo 2001-2006.
Interesting that at least they admit it is the GOP who increases spending the most.
Year.. Troops…. Deaths.. Rate
1980.. 2,159,630.. 2,392.. 0.11%1981.. 2,206,751.. 2,380.. 0.11%1982.. 2,251,067.. 2,319.. 0.10%1983.. 2,273,364.. 2,465.. 0.11%1984.. 2,297,922.. 1,999.. 0.09%1985.. 2,323,185.. 2,252.. 0.10%1986.. 2,359,855.. 1,984.. 0.08%1987.. 2,352,697.. 1,983.. 0.08%1988.. 2,309,495.. 1,819.. 0.08%1989.. 2,303,384.. 1,636.. 0.07%1990.. 2,258,324.. 1,507.. 0.07%1991.. 2,198,189.. 1,787.. 0.08%1992.. 1,953,337.. 1,293.. 0.07%1993.. 1,849,537.. 1,213.. 0.07%1994.. 1,746,482.. 1,075.. 0.06%1995.. 1,661,928.. 1,040.. 0.06%1996.. 1,613,310.. 974.. 0.06%1997.. 1,578,382.. 817.. 0.05%1998.. 1,538,570.. 827.. 0.05%1999.. 1,525,942.. 796.. 0.05%2000.. 1,530,430.. 758.. 0.05%2001.. 1,552,196.. 891.. 0.06%2002.. 1,627,142.. 999.. 0.06%2003.. 1,732,632.. 1,228.. 0.07%2004.. 1,711,916.. 1,874.. 0.11%2005.. 1,664,014.. 1,942.. 0.12%2006.. 1,664,014.. 1,858.. 0.11%
General downward trend – not surprising as the quality of recruits improved and the miliatry became more professional. 1980-2002
Then goes up …
About 2000 per year under Reagan and Bush 1. So Clinton cut the rate in half.
Posted by: Ben | November 14, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Right Ben, and even with the Iraq war, deaths in the military are no higher now, then they were in the 1980’s.
And you didn’t hear about this constantly in the main stream media then.
Must be talk radio that increased the awareness.
2392 troops in 1980? what war was that? Acordindiny to those stats Reagan killed more troops the Clinton, odd that i dont rememeber US ever being in a war most of those years.
Well since Clinton cut the end strength by sixteen divisions strength, there were fewer in the military to contribute to the annual deaths.
Tom – that might have been our intervention in lebanon – or Panama – or Grenada …
Thanks Max for providing a link to your source. Anyone bothering to read the source would know what war, event, or otherwise what contributed to the death for any given year.
Accidents. On a good three day drunk weekend, in the old days, motorcycles were more deadly than car bombs!
In all those years how many of those deaths were combat? Dieing in a car crash,drug OD, heart attack or being stabbed in a bar fight. That’s really not to governments fault probably runs close to the same percent as any large employer.
Ben not 1980, Only Lebanon did the US suffer significant casualties 300+ Marines Grenada and panama were less than a hundred. Im assuming most deaths are, Accidents, Health problems, suicide’s so on. Not Combat
Accidents and Suicides have dramatically declined over the years.
Tom – you are absolutely correct. In fact, it would be interesting to know how many accidental deaths would be expected from that number of people in civilian life.
Suicides, among combat vets are on the rise
Tom – they had been falling … until now …
ghoulish…
Clinton decimated the military shrinking the active duty troops, clearly shown on the table.
Clinton failed to respond to terrorists when they attacked America in the 1990’s.
Bush had to respond after the biggest attack.
Posted by: Max | November 14, 2007 at 12:48 PM
While i’m not a huge Clinton fan I do remember that the WTC bombers are rotting in prison. And McVeigh is dead, his friend is rotting in prison also. And I remember when he did bomb terrorists after the embassy bombing flailing wildly screaming wag the dog, because they would rather investigate his penis and who new what it looked like than terrorism
I think you are getting off track discussing body counts. There is no price you will ever put on them.
I think the thread was about the 1.5 trillion spent by Bushy on the war on terror abroad.
And so what? Was he NOT supposed to fight one of the wars? So what was the cost for the UNjustice one? Is that what you want to see?
You must agree we had to fight the first one, right? So that cost was acceptable?
But if you are concerned about the drain on resources and deficit spending, the below link might put it in perspective with past administrations.
For example, during Clinton’s reign, our national debt increased approximately 2 trillion dollars. And that was without a war.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png
AmWay–
That’s not right.
The national debt went DOWN as a percentage of GDP (which is the way economists look at it, since GDP measures our wealth or ability to pay).
Here’s a graph based on data from the historical tables in the 2006 OMB Budget as download from WhiteHouse.gov, Historical Tables.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
You can plainly see that Clinton-Gore REDUCED the national debt while Reagan-Bush 1-Bush 2 drastically INCREASED it.
I accept your apology for being a dumbass in advance.
I see what’s wrong with your graph–actually there’s two wrong things.
1. It looks at nominal not constant dollars.
2. It doesn’t factor in GDP growth or contraction over the same period.
HOWEVER, it still shows the debt slowing to no-growth under Clinton (while the economy grew wildly) and then rocketing upward under Bush (while the economy grew much more slowly).
Way to screw your argument with your own evidence.
What a maroon.
‘Death rates’ aren’t the same as ‘casualty rates, now are they, Max?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702230005
Seriously, Max: who would you Wingnuts be without Rush Limbaugh megaphoning the lies for you to follow?
AmWay – the only reason the debt increased under Clinton was interest accrual on the debt he inherited.
LOL, CF!
Nice snag. The mighty right-wing noise machine thunders on.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
Cap’N,
Indeed. The Wingnuts do believe in conservation, given their prediliction for recycling their own discredited spin. Kind of like the way beagles would eat their own excrement if allowed to.
CF posts a link to mediamatters and accuses me of being a Rush nut!
Max,
Yeah, guess I forgot that you Wingnuts can’t stand David Brock for putting down the kool-aid and telling the truth.
Pretty indicative, though, isn’t it Max, that you have NO ANSWER to my pointing out the difference between death rates and casualty rates?
If I didn’t know better, I’d almost say you knew you were lying by repeating Rush Limbaugh’s many, obvious, and well-documented lies.
Year # Troops Deaths Death Rate1993.. 1849537.. 1213.. 0.07%1994.. 1746482.. 1075.. 0.06%1995.. 1661928.. 1040.. 0.06%1996.. 1613310.. 974.. 0.06%1997.. 1578382.. 817.. 0.05%1998.. 1538570.. 827.. 0.05%1999.. 1525942.. 796.. 0.05%2000.. 1530430.. 758.. 0.05%2001.. 1552196.. 891.. 0.06%2002.. 1627142.. 999.. 0.06%2003.. 1732632.. 1228.. 0.07%2004.. 1711916.. 1874.. 0.11%2005.. 1664014.. 1942.. 0.12%2006.. 1664014.. 1858.. 0.11%
Posted by: Max | November 14, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Is this now a body count war like Viet Nam —- oh no back then we were counting their bodies
now I get it it’s an MBA run war —–
When did I lie CF? You are lying about that.
Refer to Table 6 in my link above. It clearly shows wounded/death ratios by war.
If you want to say there is a higher wounded/death ratio for the current war, the source I cited was clear on that.
A higher wounded/death ratio means that more troops who are wounded are surviving, and that’s a good thing. Why would I hide that? And why would you twist my words on that?
In WWII, there were 1.7 soldiers wounded per 1 soldier killed.
In Vietnam, there were 2.6 soldiers wounded per 1 soldier killed.
In Iraq, there are 7.6 soldiers wounded per 1 soldier killed.
In Iraq, if you are a wounded soldier, you are 3 times more likely to survive then a soldier who was wounded in Vietnam.
And that’s a bad thing for CF.
That’s good news for America, and bad news for Democrats.
Furthermore, the statistics on the Congressional Resource Service report (prepared for the US Congress) I cited, cites their specific sources. Your Media Rag report does not.
Try again CF.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
No Ken, the post was about the cost of the war. Now Brownlee didn’t want to consider the human cost, I’m the one who added that part to the equation.
For those are only concerned about the budget impact and how your Socialist programs might be impacted, then y’all can ignore the human cost.
Also, ignore the human cost if terrorist attacks on America start happening again. (You will want to consider the budget impact for rebuilding costs though)
I’m betting a whole lot of survivors with a “second birthday”, wouldn’t agree that the decrease in mortality is such a great thing! They should give them an option of a ‘living will’ so people not wishing to be, wouldn’t be resucitated.
It should be obvious, we need some more tax cuts to pay the 1.5 tril.
Bin Laden might be thinking: ” Why bother to strike them again, as they were too stupid to get it the first time.”
So, on that we’re all safe.
As I see you all sifting through our wreckage of dead soldiers and broken lives, while taking potshots at each other.
And nary a clue.
Going by the % looks like bush had doubled it from 2001 to 2005, what was Max’s point anyway. And what was his correlation?Year # Troops Deaths Death Rate1993.. 1849537.. 1213.. 0.07%1994.. 1746482.. 1075.. 0.06%1995.. 1661928.. 1040.. 0.06%1996.. 1613310.. 974.. 0.06%1997.. 1578382.. 817.. 0.05%1998.. 1538570.. 827.. 0.05%1999.. 1525942.. 796.. 0.05%2000.. 1530430.. 758.. 0.05%2001.. 1552196.. 891.. 0.06%2002.. 1627142.. 999.. 0.06%2003.. 1732632.. 1228.. 0.07%2004.. 1711916.. 1874.. 0.11%2005.. 1664014.. 1942.. 0.12%2006.. 1664014.. 1858.. 0.11%
Without using the percentages you might as well state more people die every year in Wichita than die every year in Peck. So?
Bush is acting-out a “religious foreign policy ” but isn’t that forbidden under the first amendment?
Max–
Of course CF wasn’t saying that it’s better for soldiers to die than to be wounded.
However, it is a COST that needs to be figured into the total fairly.
Phantom, as long as you repost part of my previous posts, it would be fair to repost the ENTIRE post:
Year.. Troops…. Deaths.. Rate
1980.. 2,159,630.. 2,392.. 0.11%1981.. 2,206,751.. 2,380.. 0.11%1982.. 2,251,067.. 2,319.. 0.10%1983.. 2,273,364.. 2,465.. 0.11%1984.. 2,297,922.. 1,999.. 0.09%1985.. 2,323,185.. 2,252.. 0.10%1986.. 2,359,855.. 1,984.. 0.08%1987.. 2,352,697.. 1,983.. 0.08%1988.. 2,309,495.. 1,819.. 0.08%1989.. 2,303,384.. 1,636.. 0.07%1990.. 2,258,324.. 1,507.. 0.07%1991.. 2,198,189.. 1,787.. 0.08%1992.. 1,953,337.. 1,293.. 0.07%1993.. 1,849,537.. 1,213.. 0.07%1994.. 1,746,482.. 1,075.. 0.06%1995.. 1,661,928.. 1,040.. 0.06%1996.. 1,613,310.. 974.. 0.06%1997.. 1,578,382.. 817.. 0.05%1998.. 1,538,570.. 827.. 0.05%1999.. 1,525,942.. 796.. 0.05%2000.. 1,530,430.. 758.. 0.05%2001.. 1,552,196.. 891.. 0.06%2002.. 1,627,142.. 999.. 0.06%2003.. 1,732,632.. 1,228.. 0.07%2004.. 1,711,916.. 1,874.. 0.11%2005.. 1,664,014.. 1,942.. 0.12%2006.. 1,664,014.. 1,858.. 0.11%
Conclusions, draw them yourselves. If you are too stupid to do that, then there’s no point discussing this topic with you.
Max–
Of course CF wasn’t saying that it’s better for soldiers to die than to be wounded.
However, it is a COST that needs to be figured into the total fairly.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | November 14, 2007 at 07:32 PM
Oh really Capn? 1)Isn’t CF capable of explaining his own position? 2)If not, what makes you think you are? 3)CF was very clear, he wants to factor in the Casualty to Death ratios and to show how a higher Casualty to Death ratio is a BAD thing in Iraq.
Why? Because CF wants the GI’s to die. It’s better to CF if less GI’s survive, and that would lead to a lower Casualty to Death ratio.
Why does CF want GI’s to die? Because it’s good news for the Democrat party.
I’ve posted on that several times.
The Democrats cannot win the elections in 2008 if America is successful in Iraq.
CF just doesn’t want to admit it directly.
But with his 2:45 Media Matters sponsored post, that’s EXACTLY what he was saying.
Tables tables tables
Lies, damned lies, and statistics Max.
The subject is the financial cost of the war.
I’m not good with links yet. Didn’t Donnie Rumsfeld say we could swing this whole thing for about 200 mil?
Talk about your lowball!
Reactor temp rising!
Max meltdown imminent!
Rush isn’t on for another 15 hours Max! Can ya last?
Rush is your source for your latest attempt to dump water on the subject.
They are called casualties for a reason Max.
It is entirely legitimate to take SOME consideration for grievously wounded soldiers who WOULD have died less modern technology isn’t it Max?
Are you saying grievously wounded soldiers should not count because they survived?? Their injuries count for NOTHING?
Yeah figures. And figures.
Max Cleland got the Republican “you survived” treatment too didn’t he Max?
If ya don’t die, ya don’t count. So says Rush and Max.
Even using the entire list if the table represents mortality for all reasons, it would be fair to infer that between 1980 and 2000, advancement in the medical profession would obviously be the biggest factor. Then one could assume that despite these advances, needless war starts driving the numbers back up.
Max,
YOU were the one who flogged ‘death rates’ as if this were a meaningful statistic. It isn’t, particularly–especially since Clinton’s numbers are well below those of either Bush or Reagan. But still, you scraped around for something to hurl in Clinton’s general direction, and I called you on it.
As for the issue of casualty survivability, this is, indeed, much higher than ever before. But that wasn’t my point–at all. And it didn’t appear to be yours, either, given that you only referenced Table #4 while flogging your point–whatever THAT was.
More soldiers are surviving than ever before–absolutely. But more are surviving before with debilitating, disabling wounds, particularly traumatic brain injuries, for which recovery prospects can be quite dim. These sorts of injuries, to varying degrees, affect about 1/3 of the Iraq War wounded.
“Of the nearly 24,000 wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, about a third suffer from some degree of traumatic brain injury, or TBI, according to the General Accounting Office.”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02447108.htm
Frankly, given the VA’s nickel-and-diming of Iraq War veterans already, I think it’s an open question, Max, whether at least some of these TBI’d-veterans are really better off alive than dead.
But their survival IS better for you and for other Repuke dead-ender supporters of the President to be able to claim lower “death rates.” So what if those wounded GI’s can never walk, talk, or think again–they make great props for the President to pose with, and by keeping them alive (though barely on VA funds), they never count against Bush’s ‘death rates.’
Their lives are just as destroyed as if Bush had murdered them himself. But because they’re “alive,” they don’t have to be counted. That’s the Repuke version of a two-fer.
And, of course, Max, it’s been great to watch this “Adminstration” shit all over veterans by denying benefits and providing substandard care. Walter Reed, anyone?
Bush doesn’t give a shit about veterans. Neither do you. Stop pretending you care about them as anything other than props.
I’d like to see the number of homeless outcast soldiers from say 1995-2007. Something tells me there woud be a noticeable increase. Another interesting chart would be the number of slodiers reporting ptsd for that same period.
Hey Phantom,
. . .as in Andrew Lloyd Webber?
No, as in Lee Falk.
Kansas, California soldiers killed in IraqAssociated PressFORT LEWIS, Wash. – The Department of Defense says two Stryker Brigade soldiers from Fort Lewis were killed in Iraq, including one from Kansas.
Sgt. Christopher R. Kruse, 23, of Emporia, and Cpl. Peter William Schmidt, 30, of Eureka, Calif., died Tuesday when an improvised explosive device detonated during combat operations in Mukhisa, Iraq.
Both soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry. They deployed in April.
Kruse joined the Army in 2004 in Kansas City, Kan., and was assigned to Fort Lewis in April 2005. Schmidt entered service in 2004 as well and was assigned to Fort Lewis in May 2005.
The house passed another bill to start withdrawing the troops, Repubs. and bush will shut them down again. But they said they will not vote on another funding bill for Iraq this yr.
Who cares what our war costs? Just think of it as population control! After all, nobody that MATTERS is effected!
CapnAmerica you can call me all the nasty names you want (you are much worse than Kansas), and attempt to spin the numbers any way you want – but neither makes for the truth.
From the United States Treasury, and the approved limits established by Congress, our national debt increased under Bill Clinton:
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.3809/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
These are facts certifiable and verifiable from both the Congressional Budget office and public records of legislation, as well as the US Treasury.
Spin on. Your mother needs to provide you a bar of soap for that nasty mouth of yours.
As you pretend to be the white knight of posting.
That’s not right.
The national debt went DOWN as a percentage of GDP (which is the way economists look at it, since GDP measures our wealth or ability to pay).
Here’s a graph based on data from the historical tables in the 2006 OMB Budget as download from WhiteHouse.gov, Historical Tables.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
You can plainly see that Clinton-Gore REDUCED the national debt while Reagan-Bush 1-Bush 2 drastically INCREASED it.
I accept your apology for being a dumbass in advance.Posted by: CapnAmerica | November 14, 2007 at 02:34 PM
——————————————————————-
Ok, if Percent of GDP is THE measure per Capn, then let’s look at the Avg % of GDP:
Clinton 64.48%Bush 62.10%
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-Historical-Table-7-1.pdf
Max it’s a funny thing about numbers. They are like cold hard facts.
The original post was the 1.5 trillion cost for the War on Terror. No one mentioned the cost of the war in anything other than real dollars.
In terms of real dollars, the national debt increased under Hillary (I mean Bill) Clinton.
But not one lib answered the questions I posed in my original post.
Just typical name-calling and put downs by the old time libs of this blog.
And spin.
AmWay – the only reason the debt increased under Clinton’s early years is due to interest accrual on the debt he inherited. He balanced the operating government in his first year; eventually he created sufficient operating surpluses to cover the debt service.
AmWay – I think I answered your question.
AmWay, the Libs cannot respond to your posts in a rational way, because they would have to AGREE with you that the current Lib Dem Socialist Congress has broken their promises to instill Fiscal Responsibility.
(Your 11:56, 12:17, and 12:58 posts provide those details)
And when Bush finally starts using the Veto against this Pork Spending, the Libs get insanely mad!
Which just shows their true colors, that is, they are for as much Federal Spending on Socialist handout programs as possible.
$23,000 in Federal Spending per Household now! Many of the bloggers here have admitted to making less than that! Yet they are the same ones, crying for MORE Federal Spending for MORE Socialist programs like HillaryCare!
And the only reasons why the debt has increased under GW Bush are:
1)The recession he inherited from Clinton.
2)The 9/11 attack he inherited from Clinton, and the $1.5 Trillion(?) price tag of destroying those who attacked us on 9/11.
3)Interest accrual he inherited from Clinton.
4)Out of control spending on pork projects by BOTH parties in Congress.
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000. In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000–though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton’s record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government’s fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton’s budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), in every year of Clinton’s presidency, not only did the national debt go up, but the deficit also increased!
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of “only” $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero–let alone a positive number. And Clinton’s last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton’s. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion. So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush’s tax refunds which were not part of Clinton’s last budget, that still means that Clinton’s last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 – 38 = $95.29 billion.
Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn’t leave President Bush with a surplus.
So why do they said he had a surplus?
As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself–mostly borrowing money from social security.
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, you can see in my table that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intergovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount–and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the lie.
When Clinton (and others) said that he had paid down the national debt, that was patently false–as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt–notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings.
Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities–which automatically and immediately becomes intergovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intergovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.
The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.
Are intergovernmental holdings really debt?
Absolutely! The intergovernmental debt is every bit as real as the public debt.
As I explained in a previous article, Social Security is legally required to use all its surpluses to buy U.S. Government securities. From Social Security’s standpoint, it has a multi-trillion dollar reserve in the form of U.S. Government securities. When the Social Security system starts to falter due to insufficient contributions to pay for all the benefits of retiring baby-boomers, probably around 2017, it will start cashing those securities and will expect the U.S. Government to pay it back, with interest. The problem is, the government doesn’t have the money. The money has already been spent–in part, effectively, to pay down the public debt under Clinton.
The Federal Government cannot just wave a magic wand and somehow “write off” the intergovernmental debt. Essentially, citizens invested money in Social Security and Social Security invested that money in the Federal Government. Now Social Security effectively owes you money (in the form of future retirement benefits) and won’t be able to pay you that money if the Federal Government just cancels the intergovernmental debt. The only way the Federal Government can “write off” intergovernmental debt is if it simultaneously eliminates the Social Security system. That might very well be a good idea, but it isn’t likely. And Social Security will go bankrupt in about 2017 if the Federal Government doesn’t honor those intergovernmental holdings as real debt.
In short, if the government doesn’t pay back intergovernmental holdings, other government agencies (like Social Security) will fail. Since allowing Social Security to fail is not a politically viable option, the debt represented by intergovernmental holdings is just as real as the public debt. It can’t just be eliminated by some fancy accounting trick or political maneuvering. If it were possible, believe me, politicians would have done it already and taken credit for reducing the national debt by trillions of dollars.
Does a Budget Surplus Automatically Pay Down The Debt?
The concept of a “budget surplus” or a “balanced budget” is of very tenuous importance. A budget is simply a plan on how to spend money which normally also factors in expected income. Anyone can present a “balanced budget” or have a “budget surplus” if they use inflated estimates of income or deflated estimates of expenses. In the end, a budget is nothing more than a plan. Reality is a completely different matter.
As a simple example, if I start 2008 with a job that pays $50,000/year, I can plan a budget that takes into account the $50,000 I expect to make and divides that up amongst all the expenses I expect to make over the course of the year. If my expected expenses are less than my expected earnings, I have a budget surplus. If, however, over the course of the year I lose my job and get a new job that only pays $40,000/year while at the same time it just so happens I have a variable-rate mortgage that adjusts and increases my mortgage payment, by the end of year the reality may very well be that my expenses exceeded my income. I had a budget surplus but reality had different plans and I ended up further in debt.
A balanced budget or a budget surplus is a great thing, but it’s only relevant if the budget surplus turns into a real surplus at the end of the fiscal year. In Clinton’s case, it never did.
The reality of the national debt
The only debt that matters is the total national debt. And the national debt went up every single year under Clinton. Had Clinton really had a surplus the national debt would have gone down. It didn’t go down precisely because Clinton had a deficit every single year. The U.S. Treasury’s historical record of the national debt verifies this.
Link to charts/source:
Fiscal Year
Year Ending
National Debt
Fiscal Year Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
http://www.letxa.com/
Kitrell, Clinton got the deficit down to 17 billion, that’s darn close to reducing real debt. Had Bush continued his policies we would be in much better shape than we are now with $9 trillion in debt. Now every one of us owes an amount of money equivalent to buying a very nice second home.
If we had paid down a large chunk of debt over the past 7 years we could have gotten a bigger tax cut, and a real tax cut. Bush didn’t give us a tax cut, he gave us a tax borrow.
Think about this when you get your next paycheck: Look at the amount you pay in federal taxes, and know that in addition to that, you are borrowing even more to be paid later.
Max,
“Blame Clinton!” I see. Get stuck on stupid much?
Had Bush not had the Clinton Recession and 9/11 to deal with, the trend might have continued.
Or had Clinton dealt with the terrorists, Bill would have not had a little trend going.
Kitrell, Clinton got the deficit down to 17 billion, that’s darn close to reducing real debt.
Well leftcoast, I’m glad to see one liberal at least admits the truth. Clinton did not end with a surplus, and yes he left America holding a higher national debt.
If you read my post, the Bush tax cut was 38 billion. That is a small piece of the national debt he inherited and yet it generated a huge windfall of revenue for the treasury!
The national debt is not a new phenomenon. It dates back decades before Bush. In fact, our nation had national debt centuries ago!
The sooner we stop being political “parties” and start being just Americans – we will be able to address the national debt. Until then, the two main political parties will blame each other, we will sit in the bleachers cheering our side on, and nothing gets done.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Posted by: Max | November 14, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Clinton killed 7,500 in the military when he was President.
Worst President Ever
Posted by: Max | November 14, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Clinton failed to respond to terrorists when they attacked America in the 1990’s.
Bush had to respond after the biggest attack.
Posted by: Max | November 14, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Thanx for the website, although your reporting the death rates are BS. From Table 5 Death by Cause:
President Hostile Action TerroristReagan 8yr 58 286Clinton 8yr 1 86Bushco 2yr 11 55
Maybe Clinton did not respond correctly to terrorist action but, what about Reagan…he must have forgot.
I see max never qualified his remarks here.
He derided CF. Max used the Rush limbaugh line and said CF wished for more troops to be dead as opposed to horribly wounded and survived.
THEN max….well he went away when it was suggested that maybe crippled troops should count too.He didn’t want to post numbers to that. He didn’t want that added to bush’s balance re:Iraq.
And he is at it again on another thread.
It’s the Dems fault! They won’t defund the troops.
Even though Max is PRAYING the Democrats do just that.
The troops are a commodity to Max. He exchanges them for political capital.
Shameful.
JR,
You are on a roll with that strawman tonight.
Why not try a different logical fallacy, change things up a bit?
Look at that Max.
Someone who has been there is standing up for you. He is even willing to go stand for you again.
You remember that Max. You think on that good and hard. Maybe afford a little for those who simply get hurt as opposed to tables of those killed.
JR, I thought you could read. I posted the link to the death and wounded tables at least twice above. I wasn’t hiding anything.
Oh, and still waiting for you to ‘prove’ your LIES below are true:——————————————————————–You RAN from that thread max.
I don’t blame you. You looked pretty bad.
CF did not wish soldiers had died! He demanded you remember them even if they didn’t die. YOU didn’t want to do that. Might not looks so good lumping the permanently damaged in with the dead. Gets the numbers up.
You are using the troops and Iraq for politics Max. This was the out bush’s handlers left you.
Stay the course or play politics.
Shame on you.
Posted by: J R | November 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Give me a link boy, prove it!
Posted by: Max | November 15, 2007 at 11:50 PM
What does that tell YOU JR, when Nathan who was in Iraq, stands up for me?
I never attacked our troops.
I never used them for political games.
You Dems keep crying about ending the Iraq war, while your Dem Majority Congress does NOTHING to END the Iraq war!
In Fact, the Majority Dem Congress continues to FUND the war. Yet they say they are against it.
Why? Because the Dems are playing politics with our troops.
The Dems have repeatedly failed to make a DECISION to no longer fund the war.
Why? Because the Dems do not want to take any Responsibility for making a Decision, if it later turns out to be the WRONG Decision.
The Dems just want to blow Hot Air gaining political points in the polls for opposing the war, but they do not have the balls to make a decision, stand by, and take full responsibility for that decision.
And you want the Dems to be in the White House when your party JR, has proven it CANNOT make Decisions.
Who’s playing politics with the troops? The Dems.
Max,
You *posted* nothing of the sort. The casualty tables were buried in the link you referenced (which was a 50-something page document), and were completely beside the point with regard to the ‘death rate under Clinton’ meme you were flogging. Don’t try to shift grounds.
As for ‘CF wants American troops to die,’ well, Max, I guess that explains why I spend ONE WEEK back in 2003 protesting against the possibility of the U.S. invading Iraq–because I wanted to see American troops get injured and killed.
Seriously, Max. Did your mother have any children who lived?
And then there’s YOU, Max, the hyper-patriotic, hyper-selfish, hyper-obedient mouth-breathing fascist, who cares NOTHING for the plight of greviously injured American troops, other than to have them around as photo-op props for Bush to reinforce his “commander in chief” persona.
You’re a shabby little man with a shabby little mind, Max. The best thing anyone can say about you is that you may be only mildly deranged.
Imagine what would happen if the Dems started supporting the war, by putting their words where their votes to fund the war are.
You see some effects now, from the Dems continuing to fund the war, and the surge. Despite the Dem Rhetoric to stop the war, even the enemy now sees through the continued Dem votes to fund the war, that the Americans are going to be there in Iraq for a long time.
At least until 2013 according to Hillary Clinton.
This has demoralized the enemy. 44% of America now thinks the war in Iraq is going well.
Imagine, if the Dems had supported the war with their words, in the same manner they supported it with their votes to fund it.
The enemy might have given up 2 years ago.
But then, the Dems would have nothing to run on in 2008.
Political games by the Dems.
Max,
Fantasy world keeping you happy, I see. And how many Iraqis are dying every month, and how many are still leaving Iraq?
As for ‘political games,’ I’d say the biggest one of all was Bush lying us into a war to ensure his re-election in 2004. Worked like a charm. As has his continued hiding behind Generals who support his policies, while firing those who don’t.
Bush uses American troops as human shields. By supporting him at every turn, Max, you do as well.
CF, you have any sources besides Mediamatters.com and Democraticunderground.com?
Talk about fantasy land…
Max,
Neither one of those sites is anything like a go-to info site for me.
When Max can’t argue his points, he tries to call names–and scholongs that up, too. You aren’t the sharpest knife in the Wingnut drawer, Max. Just sayin’.
And, Max, to take it a step further: according to my ’sources’ of information, it would seem as if removing foreign troops from Iraqi cities leads to a massive reduction in violence. As in, since British troops withdrew from Basra, violence has dropped by 90 PERCENT.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/15/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Basra.php
By contrast, all you can cite are poll results. Thought Repukes didn’t care about polls, Max.
Mega dittos to CF for spanking the rather slow-on-the-uptake, Max.
I can see now why both Max and AmWay support the right-wing–they don’t understand statistics.
AmWay writes that Clinton increased the national debt and posts the numbers to “prove” it:
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.3809/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
1. Are these numbers adjusted for inflation? If not, then they don’t mean sh*t.
2. Even if they ARE adjusted for inflation, they only tell half the story. The other half is how much the economy grew (our collective ability to pay) during the same time.
If I make 20 thousand dollars a year but I’m carrying 20 thousand dollars of credit card debt, I’m in bad financial shape.
But if I make 120 thousand a year and I carry the same debt load, no one would see it a serious problem.
If by taking a loan on my credit card, I use it as an investment to help my business grow rapidly, that would be a good use of increasing credit because it increases my ability to pay the debt.
Same way with nat’l debt and GDP. If debt helps GDP grow faster than the debt grows, we’re better off than when the debt was “lower.”
This isn’t rocket science. This basic understanding of elementary finance.
Sheesh, please tell me you were home-schooled or went to some “Christian academy” somewhere.
And then there’s Boy Jeenyous Max who posts this:
Clinton 64.48%Bush 62.10%
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-Historical-Table-7-1.pdf
Posted by: Max | November 15, 2007 at 10:10 AM
He takes Clinton’s HIGHEST year early on in his tenure and ignores the FINAL year when debt stood at 54 percent of GDP.
After 1994, Clinton-Gore drove the debt down. Under Worst. President. Ever., it has gone nowhere but straight up.
But never fear, IQ Boy Max will argue about good old-fashioned conservative “fiscal responsibility” and support the President Debt with equal, uncritical fervor.
Very good Capn, you just defined AVERAGE.
That’s what I posted.
This blog really is like teaching in elementary school.
See, that’s what I’m talking about.
Clinton takes Reagan’s historically high debt (as a percentage of GDP) and drives it DOWN some ten points over his last six years in office.
Bush takes that much lower debt and drives it UP every year, and Boy Jeenyous Max says, “Clinton’s average was higher.”
Unbelievable.
Hey, Max if you run out of money during your retirement, don’t worry about it.
Your AVERAGE income will still be high.
My math professor said if you want to feel average, stick one hand in ice cold water, the other in scalding water. The average temp. between both hands will feel fine.