ObameconomyFollow

Fallacious.

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.

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"

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.



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.

$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?

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.

You know what they say, once you've got a good deception going, why stop?

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.




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




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.



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.

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.

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



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.

When I grew up (on Fort Gordon) my family's medical care was both a healthcare cost and a military cost.

HAHA! Take that!