10 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkHow much has been spent on the Iraq war that is over and above what would have been spent regardless of whether the troops and ships etc were in dry dock or in combat?
I think he didn't know the difference. If he did he would know that additional military spending has very little to do with a $9 trillion debt ceiling.
I haven't looked up the exact number but I thought I read it was about $300-400 billion per year so far? If that's the case and the war goes on for say 10 years, that's $3-4 trillion that the US wouldn't have had to spend so, using this as an example, wouldn't you say that military spending has some measurable impact on the debt?
I fully admit these numbers may be off but you get the concept.
10 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessThats about double what it is. The last budget was the highest yet and it was about half that. You can get all the numbers at one of the links I've previously posted.
How much has been spent on the Iraq war that is over and above what would have been spent regardless of whether the troops and ships etc were in dry dock or in combat?
I haven't looked up the exact number but I thought I read it was about $300-400 billion per year so far? If that's the case and the war goes on for say 10 years, that's $3-4 trillion that t able impact on the debt?
I fully admit these numbers may be off but you get the concept.
Edit: I'm talking about Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzless
How much has been spent on the Iraq war that is over and above what would have been spent regardless of whether the troops and ships etc were in dry dock or in combat?
To get a good number for this you'd have to go back to pre-Iraq War and measure the trend military spending. Then you'd use that figure to get a projection. You'd have to throw out the data for the quarter before the start of the war too, since they were building up for it at that time.
Now without looking at the data and doing careful econometrics ...
Military spending would certainly have grown. We had a Republican-run government. Moreover we were already at war. Some fraction of the resources that went to Iraq would have gone to Afghanistan and fighting Bin Laden instead (anyone remember that guy?). We'd probably still have had large deficits since they're easy politically. Finally, Bush has no qualms with overspending even against warnings from various economic advisors.
Would we have as large of deficits? Almost certainly not. Could that money have been used in a wiser fashion? Yeah. Anything from education to corporate tax cuts would have been better.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessUhm not exactly. It depends upon how much tax revenue the goverment gets and how much of their current expenditure they choose to pay with it.
Okay, so if the iraq/afgan war costs $100-200 Billion per year and goes on for 10 years (as projected) then that means the extra debt will be 1-2 Trillion dollars.
Say you purchase a car from some one under the condition that you pay $500/month for 5 years. If you never pay, then after those 5 years you'll be in debt whatever $25,000 financed over 5 years equals. If on the otherhand you make $35,000/year, pay $500/month on the car, and cover all your other expenditures, then at the end of 5 years you won't have any debt at all.
The government is essentially similar. They raise tax revenue and allocate it toward paying for government expenditures and debt service. If tax revenues are not sufficient (i.e. budget deficit), then the government must increase their debt. So the amount of Iraq War expenditure that ends up as debt, depends upon how much tax revenue is raised and how much the government chooses to spend on other things. $100-200 Billion/year for 10 years does not imply $1-2 Trillion dollars of debt.
11 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI will grant you the theory. However, I make the assumption that the tax level stayed the same regardless of whether or not there was an Iraq war. (In reality, the tax level went down making the problem even worse)
Uhm not exactly. It depends upon how much tax revenue the goverment gets and how much of their current expenditure they choose to pay with it.
Say you purchase a car from some one under the condition that you pay $500/month for 5 years. If you never pay, then after those 5 years you'll be in debt whatever $25,000 financed over 5 years equals. If on ther things. $100-200 Billion/year for 10 years does not imply $1-2 Trillion dollars of debt.
If revenue remains constant in the war/no war comparison, then the total yearly deficit and therefore total debt must increase to pay for the war.
The only way to avoid this increase in debt would be to cut expenditures, which i've already demonstrated to Mcswain did occur to some degree.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessRevenue didn't remain constant. I constantly increased.
I will grant you the theory. However, I make the assumption that the tax level stayed the same regardless of whether or not there was an Iraq war. (In reality, the tax level went down making the problem even worse)
If revenue remains constant in the war/no war comparison, then the total yearly deficit and therefore total debt must increase to pay for the ...[text shortened]... ld be to cut expenditures, which i've already demonstrated to Mcswain did occur to some degree.
Telerion covered it pretty well. Military spending would have increase regardless. How much less exactly it would have been because of Iraq would be very difficult to put a finger. But we can ballpark it.
At this point it's probably safe to say that it's not more than a few hundred billion additional.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkThis is from the chart you posted earlier. Explain to me again how revenues increased from 2001 (start of war) through 2004?
Revenue didn't remain constant. I constantly increased.
.
Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS: 1789–2012
(in millions of dollars)
2001 1,991,426 1,863,190
2002 1,853,395 2,011,153
2003 1,782,532 2,160,117
2004 1,880,279 2,293,006
2005 2,153,859 2,472,205
2006 2,407,254 2,655,435
Looks pretty clear to me revenue dropped while expenditures increased.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessRevenue dropped for two years. This is now six years after the tax cuts. Also notice that the Iraq war started in 03, the last year of the two year decrease, so increases in military spending would have increase regarless of Iraq. How much, is the only question.
This is from the chart you posted earlier. Explain to me again how revenues increased from 2001 (start of war) through 2004?
Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS: 1789–2012
(in millions of dollars)
2001 1,991,426 1,863,190
2002 1,853,395 2,011,153
2003 1,782,532 2,160,117
2004 1,880,279 2,293,006
2005 2,153,859 2 ...[text shortened]... 2,407,254 2,655,435
Looks pretty clear to me revenue dropped while expenditures increased.