Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

ObameconomyFollow

#77 Dec 08 2009 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Can't find the most recent numbers right at the moment, but the numbers up through FY 2007 was 610B dollars, with an estimate for another 120ish Billion for 2008.

$944 billion. Was the first hit on Google.
The Congressional Budget Office wrote:
With enactment of the FY2009 Supplemental (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32) on June 24, 2009, Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
[...]
If the Administration’s FY2010 war request is enacted, total war-related funding would reach $1.08 trillion, including $748 billion for Iraq, $300 billion for Afghanistan, $29 billion for enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 69% would be for Iraq, 28% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Dec 08 2009 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Heh, we spend more to kill people than we do to make people healthy. Are we a war society yet?


Fallacious.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#79 Dec 08 2009 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Heh, we spend more to kill people than we do to make people healthy. Are we a war society yet?


Fallacious.
I know.
#80 Dec 08 2009 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can't find the most recent numbers right at the moment, but the numbers up through FY 2007 was 610B dollars, with an estimate for another 120ish Billion for 2008.

$944 billion. Was the first hit on Google.


Yeah. Well, I was obviously typing the wrong search string. Whatever...

Um... So in 8 years of fighting two wars and a bunch of other related stuff, we've spent "half again as much" instead of "slightly more". Doesn't change the point. The relative cost for the wars is tiny in comparison to other domestic expenditures.


And those costs are even more tiny in comparison to what the Dems are currently spending. It's just as absurd to argue that somehow because Bush spent money fighting a couple of wars, there's no reason not to spend 10 times as much money per year forever on stuff we've somehow magically managed to survive just fine without up until this point.


That's kinda where it falls apart IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Dec 08 2009 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Think how much more we'd have to spend on other stuff every year if we didn't have 2 wars! :D

Heh, we spend more to kill people than we do to make people healthy. Are we a war society yet?


And still missing the point. That's the total amount since 2001. We're comparing that to the amount we spend on health care in just one single year.

Just in case basic math is too hard, that means that in one year we spend the following:

Wars: 120B
Health: 650B


So we don't "spend more to kill people than we do to make people healthy". Not by a massive margin. And that cost for war is higher than normal. In 5 years, our defense budget will drop back to what it normally is, with most if not all of that additional cost eliminated. Will the increased costs associated with current health care proposals disappear in 5 years? 10 years? Ever?

No. They wont. Hence the problem...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Dec 08 2009 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Doesn't change the point.

Well, it's a stupid point anyway so I don't much care about that. But you might as well get the numbers right.

Oh, and the esoteric search string was "cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Dec 08 2009 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Health care costs will never disappear because people won't magically stop getting sick. Duh.

BUT, if preventative health care is given to the people, then excessively costly emergency measures will be drastically reduced. People will stop going into debt and bankruptcy over medical bills.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#84 Dec 08 2009 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Doesn't change the point.

Well, it's a stupid point anyway so I don't much care about that. But you might as well get the numbers right.


I agree. It's a stupid point to excuse current domestic spending by pointing to the costs for the wars. And I said I couldn't find current numbers.

Quote:
Oh, and the esoteric search string was "cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"


Actually, the problem was that the version of Acroread connected by default to my version of Firefox fails to read some newer pdfs. I couldn't open the most recent one, so I opened a couple older ones with numbers from 2007, and projections for 2008 and went from there. I didn't feel like saving the file, then firing up the correct version to read it just to figure out if the number was 800ish Billion or 900ish Billion dollars.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Dec 08 2009 at 7:30 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Oh, and the esoteric search string was "cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"

It's like playing Jeopardy; I'm trying to figure out what search he made that gave $610 billion as validation of his point. The spending bill from last September? Gay/lesbian consumer buying power?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#86 Dec 08 2009 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
$188 bn was earmarked for the war on terror in 2008, according to cbo.gov. While the additional cost of war may be lower per year, the US spends significantly more on the military than medicare and medicaid - it is simply split up into military research contracts, the defence spending shown as defence and a separate piece for the war on terror. The intent of this is obviously to make it look like the US is spending less on the military than it is. Incidentally, the money set aside for the war each year does not take into account the sizable increase of money paid to crippled veterans that will last until they finally croak - some estimates put the final cost as high as $3 trill.

In any case, I won't defend medicare, because it's a horribly bloated, inefficient system when compared with "socialised" healthcare. Probably better than the barbarism you advocate, but what isn't?
#87 Dec 08 2009 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
$188 bn was earmarked for the war on terror in 2008, according to cbo.gov. While the additional cost of war may be lower per year, the US spends significantly more on the military than medicare and medicaid - it is simply split up into military research contracts, the defence spending shown as defence and a separate piece for the war on terror. The intent of this is obviously to make it look like the US is spending less on the military than it is. Incidentally, the money set aside for the war each year does not take into account the sizable increase of money paid to crippled veterans that will last until they finally croak - some estimates put the final cost as high as $3 trillion


In the same way that medicare/aid is only a small piece of our yearly health care outlays.

But the general point still stands.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#88 Dec 08 2009 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Actually, the problem was that the version of Acroread connected by default to my version of Firefox fails to read some newer pdfs. I couldn't open the most recent one, so I opened a couple older ones with numbers from 2007, and projections for 2008 and went from there. I didn't feel like saving the file, then firing up the correct version to read it just to figure out if the number was 800ish Billion or 900ish Billion dollars.

That's your justification for not knowing how to do a Google search? No wonder you're unwilling to provide cites for most of your arguments.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#89 Dec 08 2009 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's a stupid point to excuse spending on useless and pointless wars by pointing to the costs of healthcare.


FTFY.

Edited, Dec 8th 2009 5:47pm by Ambrya
#90 Dec 08 2009 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
Timelordwho wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
$188 bn was earmarked for the war on terror in 2008, according to cbo.gov. While the additional cost of war may be lower per year, the US spends significantly more on the military than medicare and medicaid - it is simply split up into military research contracts, the defence spending shown as defence and a separate piece for the war on terror. The intent of this is obviously to make it look like the US is spending less on the military than it is. Incidentally, the money set aside for the war each year does not take into account the sizable increase of money paid to crippled veterans that will last until they finally croak - some estimates put the final cost as high as $3 trillion


In the same way that medicare/aid is only a small piece of our yearly health care outlays.

But the general point still stands.


You know what they say, once you've got a good deception going, why stop?
#91 Dec 08 2009 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Actually, the problem was that the version of Acroread connected by default to my version of Firefox fails to read some newer pdfs. I couldn't open the most recent one, so I opened a couple older ones with numbers from 2007, and projections for 2008 and went from there. I didn't feel like saving the file, then firing up the correct version to read it just to figure out if the number was 800ish Billion or 900ish Billion dollars.
That's your justification for not knowing how to do a Google search? No wonder you're unwilling to provide cites for most of your arguments.

Searching is hard. Let's go shopping!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Dec 08 2009 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
$188 bn was earmarked for the war on terror in 2008, according to cbo.gov. While the additional cost of war may be lower per year, the US spends significantly more on the military than medicare and medicaid - it is simply split up into military research contracts, the defence spending shown as defence and a separate piece for the war on terror.


False.

It's not "significantly more". It's less. Now admittedly, the total cost for defense is greater than it used to be in relation to health care spending, but it's still less than the health care.


Quote:
The intent of this is obviously to make it look like the US is spending less on the military than it is.


I suppose if you only look at projections, you'd be correct. However, as everyone knows (or should know from years of me posting here), when I quote CBO figures, I look only at the historical budget data. That way we know there's no finagling of the figures. Defense appropriations throughout the year which were not initially budgeted still count in the "defense" column when the historical numbers are derived. It's what we actually spent, not what we projected, so there's no "lie".

Total defense spending for 2008 was 612.4B dollars.

Total Medicare/Medicaid expenses for 2008 was 657.4B


Quote:
Incidentally, the money set aside for the war each year does not take into account the sizable increase of money paid to crippled veterans that will last until they finally croak - some estimates put the final cost as high as $3 trill.


Sure. Over the next 50 years. Want to take a wild guess how much Medicare and Medicaid will cost us over the next 50 years? It's funny that you lash out at what you perceive to be deceptive budgeting methods, but then gleefully use one of the more obnoxious tricks yourself. This is the same thing (although to a lesser degree) that is done when people tally up the total cost of the wars themselves and make some huge deal out of it. When you compare them year to year against other government costs, they don't look so huge, so you have to inflate them by adding up 8 years of costs.


That's deceptive as well. It's also why you'll note that when we discuss the health care proposals, I'm very careful not to parrot huge figures like "it'll cost us 10 trillion dollars!!!". Because those are long term numbers spread over a period of years. I prefer to find the per-year numbers. Or. If I do quote a longer term programmatic cost, I'm careful to state that this is the cost over X years (and I usually do the math to state how much that works out to each year).

Fair is fair, afterall.

Quote:
In any case, I won't defend medicare, because it's a horribly bloated, inefficient system when compared with "socialised" healthcare. Probably better than the barbarism you advocate, but what isn't?


I've stated many times how I think we should do health care. And, despite all the claims that I'm some kind of rabid Republican shill, it's not something that either party is seriously putting on the table either. But if I have to choose between a bad way of doing health care that costs us 650B/year and one that may cost us twice that, I'll choose the former. If I have to choose between a government provided health care which you only get if you fall into certain categories and one which will be foisted on everyone. I'll choose the former.

I've been very consistent about this position and my explanation for that position. I'll repeat it again if you want, but I figure by now you should know what it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Dec 08 2009 at 9:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
I've been very consistent about this position and my explanation for that position. I'll repeat it again if you want, but I figure by now you should know what it is.


Would you have an absolute opposition to an insurance situation where there were both private and public options on the table? Each discreetly funded, and outside the standard tax schema, naturally.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#94 Dec 08 2009 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
I've been very consistent about this position and my explanation for that position. I'll repeat it again if you want, but I figure by now you should know what it is.


Would you have an absolute opposition to an insurance situation where there were both private and public options on the table? Each discreetly funded, and outside the standard tax schema, naturally.


Insurance should only be applied to rare and expensive events. Stop insuring regular care, and most of the problems we're seeing go away.

Also, insurance should be provided by a private organization. Never by the government. The very concept is ludicrous (think about it). What you have to understand is that the term "health insurance" is substituted for "health care" depending on the semantic value of using one term or another. They really are not and should not be treated as the same.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Dec 08 2009 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
I've been very consistent about this position and my explanation for that position. I'll repeat it again if you want, but I figure by now you should know what it is.


Would you have an absolute opposition to an insurance situation where there were both private and public options on the table? Each discreetly funded, and outside the standard tax schema, naturally.


Insurance should only be applied to rare and expensive events. Stop insuring regular care, and most of the problems we're seeing go away.

Also, insurance should be provided by a private organization. Never by the government. The very concept is ludicrous (think about it). What you have to understand is that the term "health insurance" is substituted for "health care" depending on the semantic value of using one term or another. They really are not and should not be treated as the same.


Sure, but if you insure the high priced procedures but not the low prices preventative measures you end up disincentivize measures meant to keep costs down. Which is why a tiered mitigation scheme should exist.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#96 Dec 08 2009 at 10:20 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
False.

It's not "significantly more". It's less. Now admittedly, the total cost for defense is greater than it used to be in relation to health care spending, but it's still less than the health care.


Read better. I said "military spending", not "defence spending".

Quote:
Sure. Over the next 50 years. Want to take a wild guess how much Medicare and Medicaid will cost us over the next 50 years? It's funny that you lash out at what you perceive to be deceptive budgeting methods, but then gleefully use one of the more obnoxious tricks yourself. This is the same thing (although to a lesser degree) that is done when people tally up the total cost of the wars themselves and make some huge deal out of it. When you compare them year to year against other government costs, they don't look so huge, so you have to inflate them by adding up 8 years of costs.


There's a difference - the combat which causes the injuries has already taken place. The damage to their limbs is already done, and the US military is contractually obliged to take care of them because of it. It is more like a delayed cost than an implicit one - more like a loan in effect than "in 10 years, the yearly cost of x will be y, which creates a z bn deficit if we do not change it". Even if you refuse to acknowledge this and legality, it is far easier politically to change medicare or pension amounts (Thatcher did this and it's not even top ten in the list of reasons we all hate her) than canceling veteran healthcare, because the GOP paints itself as the military party and will not approve it, and the Dems paint themselves the compassionate party and will not approve it. This cost is a result of the war on terror, and thus should be attributed to it.
#97 Dec 08 2009 at 10:43 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
And Palin is within 1 point of Obama. I sure hope she wins next time around and it's looking better everyday.
I would LOVE to see Palin get the nomination for Republican candidate for president. I don't think you could create any better news in the world for Obama's reelection.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#98 Dec 08 2009 at 11:37 PM Rating: Good
When I grew up (on Fort Gordon) my family's medical care was both a healthcare cost and a military cost.

HAHA! Take that!
#99 Dec 09 2009 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Doesn't change the point.

Well, it's a stupid point anyway so I don't much care about that. But you might as well get the numbers right.


I agree. It's a stupid point to excuse current domestic spending by pointing to the costs for the wars.


But... weren't you the one who brought up domestic spending when we were talking about a war tax?
#100REDACTED, Posted: Dec 09 2009 at 10:07 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) manifest,
#101 Dec 09 2009 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Remember when it was September and Varrus was saying "Polls two months before the election are meaningless!" in regards to voter preference polls?

Now a 2009 approval rating poll is deeply important to the 2012 presidential election. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 199 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (199)