Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz told Congress last week that the Iraq war “has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself. . . . By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.†In addition, there has been an opportunity cost to spending on Iraq and not on other priorities. “For a fraction of the cost of this war,†Stiglitz said, “we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.â€
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
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Mrage on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- BlueJay on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
38 Comments
The George WMD Bush Legacy –
Spending money we don’t have on a cause we can’t win.
How proud you Republic Party advocates must be.
I wonder why it’s not mentioned that this guy was part of Clinton’s cabinet.
Take from the achievers, give to the do nothings.
Yeah, George Bush has always been such an “achiever”–always with other people’s money.
Of course it is being financed by dept – that is the Republic way!
Take from future generations; waste on today’s fiascos!
Extremist Christians and Extremist Jews have all but wrecked the American economy, driven-up the price of crude of crude oil and gasoline by threatening all out war in the Middle East Oil Fields.
All this based on Religious fantasies.
America needs a good dose of Obama reality.
Hillary is nothing more than another one of their puppets with more of the same crap that got us into this trouble we’re into.
Obama will give us a fresh start.
Our freedom comes before social needs. We must kill terrorists before they kill us. They have been out there for over 20 years, so I don’t think you can call it Bush’s war. Lets don’t forget 911.
Now just hold on here a minute!
I thought democrats said the social security system is in WONDERFUL shape?
I recall when George Bush said it needed fixing, democrats rallied to poo-poo the idea.
Funding the war? Hell, we fund our entire “way of life” on credit and deficits. There’s no freedom like the freedom that comes with being in debt up to your ass.
Iraq + 9/11 = what?
Pleefer
Posted March 7, 2008 at 9:25 am | Permalink
Iraq + 9/11 = what?
Iraq + 9/11 = an unending war for oil?
01/21/1993 Clinton took office
$4,174,218,594,232.91 National Debt
01/22/2001 Clinton left office
$5,728,195,796,181.57 National Debt
$1,553,977,201,948.66
The debt WE Americans OWE increased 1.5 trillion dollars under WJ Clinton. Wasn’t a concern during his eight years. And he didn’t have a war to hide behind.
The trillions of dollars of debt has been increasing for over four decades under the leadership of republicans and democrats alike.
I won’t agrue that Bush is the worst – but the solution is NOT just related to the president.
That is, if democrats really “care”.
Our great great grandchildren will still be paying it off.
AmWay – WRONG! The mounting debt WAS a concern during clinton’s terms. And he DID move to bring it under control – first by getting us to a balanced OPERATING budget and then by generating enough SURPLUSES to begin to cover the interest accruals on the inherited REPUBLIC debt.
Consider that the debt increased by 4.65%/year (compounding ignored for simplicity) – that is less then the interest accrual that would be expected from a simple ‘no action’ scenario.
“Lets don’t forget 911″
Then lets invade the place of origin of OBL and alQuada – SAUDI ARABIA!
Using your logic Ben, most of the debt Bush amassed is inherited interest……..
Sorry, you can dance around it all you want. But the debt figures are from the US Treasury.
There was no surplus. If there was, he could have used it all to pay down the debt!
“Then lets invade the place of origin of OBL and alQuada – SAUDI ARABIA!”
What the heck does THAT have to do with the price of beans in China Ben?
And none of us needed a Nobel Prize-winning economist to tell us that.
All these highly educated people don’t seem to be around when congress APPROVES the appropriation acts. Not one penny leaves the treasury without their vote.
The debt as a percentage of GDP shrunk under Clinton.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
This same figure rose sharply under Reagan, GWH Bush, and baby-Bush.
We will need to let the tax cuts on the richest Americans expire in 2010. We will have to raise other earners’ taxes and means test and raise the elligibility ages for Medicare and Social Security. Americans are living longer and working longer. These entitlement cuts can be made without kicking grandma into the street.
“without kicking grandma into the street.”
No, you’ just kick a future grandma into the street!
But (gasp) Steven! You’d have to admit there IS a problem with Social Security to post that!
PS: Percent of GDP is a joke. I’d like you to tell that to your credit card rep – when you decide NOT to pay your bill! We still have to pay the actual debt. (but nice try)
What does Saudi Arabia have to do with 9/11? Everything. Do your homework.
Conflation. Perhaps the social security system needs a tune up but not a major overhaul, and certainly not one that privatizes the system. We’re getting good at spotting these “socialize the cost, privatize the profits” gambits.
Steven, if we taxed ALL earnings for social security, and not just up to a certain amount, we might not need to raise the age of eligibility.
And if we fixed our health care affordability problems, we could delay the onset of medicare taking over the burden?
And Pleef?
“There’s no freedom like the freedom that comes with being in debt up to your ass.”
I didnt know you were a FARMER! hehehehehehehehe.
The Bush War of Choice on Iraq will not only turn out to be the biggest foreign policy misadventure in US history, but it will also turn out to be the biggest economic disaster as well.
And all of this because George had a hard on for Saddam Hussein.
Worst President Ever.
And the Republicans are going to nominate John W McBush as their candidate for president?
Perhaps McCain wants to take the title from Bush.
“Steven, if we taxed ALL earnings for social security, and not just up to a certain amount, we might not need to raise the age of eligibility.”
Since social security payments are roughly based upon your life time earnings, that would be fair. Those that pay in the most, would get more in Social Security benefits. And stop taxing the benefits.
Not to mention, raising the age of eligibility is a lost benefit to baby boomer. Pretty soon you will have to be dead before you are eligible to collect.
Raising the age for qualification to receive full benefits to a point that it is analogous to that of the early 30s would be one way to do it; I don’t have any actuarial information handy, but will speculate that instead of 65, 72 to 75 would be the age.
American Way, the taxation of benefits has been cussed and discussed previously. From a position of “equity”, should not that portion of the benefits attributable to the employer’s contribution, together with the earnings on all contributions, be subject to income taxation, akin to private pensions? Perhaps a rule similar to that applied to Civil Service retirement payments, the first X years thereof be treated as a recovery of the amounts contributed by the (now retired) employee, with benefits received thereafter fully taxable?
IIRC, the age of 65 being chosen back when Social Security was begun was based, a bit, and cold heartedly IMO on the expectation that on average benefits would only be drawn for three years or so.
AmWay – “Using your logic Ben, most of the debt Bush amassed is inherited interest……..”
WRONG! Have you accountant do the math for you. Both Bush’s added huge OPERATING deficits to the debt.
“Then lets invade the place of origin of OBL and alQuada – SAUDI ARABIA!”
What the heck does THAT have to do with the price of beans in China Ben?
At least as much as George’s “Lets don’t forget 911″
Social Security isn’t a benefit program for millions of Americans who die before they collect one dime from the system.
A tax is a tax, by any other name.
Max, while the decedent might not receive benefits, if married, there is the death benefit (such as it is); there is the benefit paid to minor children; the widow(er)’s benefit. Now, if the individual is single, never married, never had a child, no one collects anything. A bit like a forfeiture of nonvested pension plan contributions, and the benefits that would have attached thereto if vesting had occurred.
“Max” distorts reality by saying –
“Social Security isn’t a benefit program for millions of Americans who die before they collect one dime from the system.”
You’re wrong, of course.
Social Security is an insurance program. Ones surviving spouse might qualify for widows’ benefits. Ones minor children would get orphans’ benefits.
It’s part of the Republic Party’s Big Lie strategy too refer to Social Security as merely a retirement program.
Who wouldn’t forego their SS to have Saddam taken out?
MonkeyHawk, an insurance program which is not actuarially based.
When clinto was in office we saw the national debt clock on tv all the time. Guess bush broke it!
Conservatives whine about Democrats being “tax and spend” liberals. Somehow that seems a lot better than the borrow and spend conservatives. We’re still paying interest on Reagan’s debts.
Why don’t the conservatives just leave this country if they hate it so much. They want to bankrupt this country so they borrow billions of dollars and throw it down the toilet. They sell off our nation’s infrastructure to foreign nations. The work overtime in destroying our military. They make medical care more expensive because they don’t care if people get sick or die. They want to get rid of the education system because education is an investment in the future and they don’t want America to have a future.
Can anything think of anything positive the conservatives have done since they’ve seized power?
If our good friends the Saudis would keep their Islamic terrorist at home, we wouldn’t have to be sitting in Iraq waiting to swat some flies!
Nothing odd about this. President Bush wants us to take that nice refund and run out and spend it like mad. Spend, spend, spend yourself into prosperity.
Bury our nation alive in debt to finance a pointless war.
Whatever you do, don’t conserve your financial resources.
#
Vaughn Tolle
Posted March 7, 2008 at 11:26 am | Permalink
“IIRC, the age of 65 being chosen back when Social Security was begun was based, a bit, and cold heartedly IMO on the expectation that on average benefits would only be drawn for three years or so.”
Right in the measure. The first Social Security program that was set up to pay at 65 was in Germany, and it was created by Bismarck. He chose that age because the average German factory worker in his day only lived, on average, to be 40.
Adjusting the actuarial tables to take our longer life spans into account, you would be eligible for payment when you reached 108.
“Social Security isn’t a benefit program for millions of Americans who die before they collect one dime from the system.”
1. Their dependents get a lot of money from Social Security. About 1/3rd of all pay-outs go to widows and orphans.
2. Neither do people who have life insurance but DON’T DIE, while they’re paying for it.
3. We all benefit from a society in which old people don’t rot in the gutter.
Except for Max, he wants to rot in the gutter.
“Their dependents get a lot of money from Social Security. About 1/3rd of all pay-outs go to widows and orphans.”
Big deal, when my sister’s husband died in December, she got his social security and her’s stopped. All said, she has $600 less in monthly income. They both worked hard all their lives, but in the end you only get to collect one social security income if one partner dies. It’s a good thing my sister didn’t count on social security to take care of all her financial needs, like too many do. They also owned rental properties that bring in more income than social security.
Too many baby boomers haven’t saved enough for retirement, the average is only $40,000…that’s going to be a pretty hard wake up call for a lot of people when they try to retire.