I am so sick of hearing about how we can spend the money we save from ending the wars!!!!

[underoath]

WE DO NOT HAVE THAT MONEY!!!! IT WAS ALL PUT ON CREDIT CARDS!!!!






I AM ADVOCATING AGAINST WAR! I AM STATING THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE EXTRA MONEY BY ENDING THE WARS. I AM SICK OF PEOPLE THINKING WE WILL HAVE ALL THIS EXTRA MONEY BY ENDING THEM. WE WILL JUST HAVE A SMALLER CREDIT CARD BILL, THATS IT!

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Whaaa?

[Taverner]

3. Just saber rattling from a warmonger

Pay no attention to the armchair general

[underoath]

13. do you think we will have more money to spend elsewhere if we end the wars?

[Taverner]

14. We won't OWE as much money

Which means we won't have to pay off as much, which means, yes we will have more money

[underoath]

17. we will have more money in our pockets but we will not have money coming back to us in savings from

it.

[ZombieHorde]

37. I think the line: "I AM ADVOCATING AGAINST WAR!,"

is the opposite of warmongering.

[markpkessinger]

49. It isn't just the wars . . .

. . . It's the entire, aggregate sum of money spent on an obscenely bloated security apparatus, including the money spent in the name of national agress... er, defense, and that spent in the name of "homeland security." It's all one giant boondoggle, and yes, some of that money could be redirected towards problems we face here at home.

You seem to think that all national debt is a bad thing. Most economists would disagree with you. Provided that debt doesn't get too high as a percentage of GDP (and it is still lower, as a % of GDP, than it was at the end of WWII), and the interest paid on that debt is not onerously high (and it isn't), long-term debt is a perfectly legitimate way for a nation to address some of its problems. The point many of us are making is one about our national priorities. There is something seriously fucked up about a nation that is willing to take on massive debt to fund its imperial military adventures, but not to address the problems its citizens face.

[orpupilofnature57]

60. 1961, 90% tax after a point and this comment for a secure world....

[Taverner]

2. Yeah! More war! AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!!!

Let's start some NEW wars!!!!!

I never liked Fiji - let's bring Democracy to Fiji!!!!




In all honesty, you warmongers have no place in progressivism or the Democratic Party.

Go back to the war party....I'm sure they'd love to have you

[underoath]

16. wtf are you talking about???

I want the wars to BE DONE!!!

My op was started because of people stating that we can use the money from the wars elsewhere. what money? we didn't use money to pay for the wars we used credit cards!! If you stop putting the wars on our debt, we will not magically have money to spend elsewhere. we just wont be racking up more debt. right?

[former-republican]

20. The invasion of Iraq didn't cost the U.S or tax payer any money

It was paid for by the oil revenues of Iraq.

[Autumn]

26. In what universe?

The Halliburton universe perhaps? I would love to see a link proving that it was paid for by the oil revenues of Iraq

[former-republican]

33. Are you calling me a liar?

I can link a video clip of "Bush" telling me and the American people it won't cost us a dime.

Are you calling former junior president bush a liar?



yea I didn't think so.

[Autumn]

35. Calling former junior president bush a liar is one of the mildest names

I call him. Good one, my sarcasm meter must be broken today.

[still_one]

48. I do not believe you are correct. That is one of the reasons the deficit is so high

Last edited Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

President Obama said put the wars on the books

Bush and company keep them off

[pangaia]

51. That is what the fascists told us would happen.

It, of course, never did. In fact the Chinese are taking oil out of Iraq as we speak. Smart guys, aren't they. :&gt )

[Sekhmets Daughter]

52. That was the original plan from some of the most

extreme right wing nuts in his administration. Had they found WMDs, I suspect that's the route they would have gone. Instead, in order to placate the Brits and other allies, they put the fields up for bid.

[dionysus]

22. it's bizarre that the OP would make anyone go off unhinged like that...

the OP pointed out a simple fact, and you call him a warmonger?

[Taverner]

24. You must really have a crush on me

Stalking me and all...that's...special

[dionysus]

28. LOL...

[underoath]

27. Thank you for getting my point.

[Marinedem]

50. Never

Never before have I seen such an epic fail of reading comprehension.

[ProSense]

4. Huh?

What a dumb post!

[underoath]

7. How it is a dumb post?

do you think we can spend the money from the wars elsewhere?

[ProSense]

12. Why

"do you think we can spend the money from the wars elsewhere?"

...yes I do. It's what the President ran on, and I agree with him: Do some nation building at home.

[underoath]

15. But we put the wars on debt! You do not get money back by cutting out debts. dur

[ProSense]

19. I'm not a

deficit hawk so I don't conflate much needed, necessary spending with deficit reduction.

IOW, spending the money on tax cuts for the rich, bad. Spending the money on stimulus and upgrading our country's infrastructure, good.

It's a simple equation, really.

[underoath]

23. you are not getting me.

the only thing I am saying that is we will not have a shit load of money by ending the wars.

all we will have is smaller debt numbers. and that we cannot spend that "savings" anywhere else because you cant spend your debt savings.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Actually we can and will spend some of our 'debt savings'.

There is no reason at all why our government has to have a balanced budget. Running modest annual deficits is a good thing. In fact, what they are sort of pointing out with all this 'fiscal cliff' scaremongering, is that a huge reduction in federal spending would plunge us into a major depression. The federal deficit spending is a crucial part of our economy.

So, in summary, reducing our ridiculously bloated military budget would allow us to make decisions about where to allocate the resources previously allocated to that bloat. Some of that re-allocation could go toward deficit reduction, but some of it could be reallocated to, for example, infrastructure projects that would benefit all of us over the long term.

[pangaia]

53. Whew! Finally someone putting facts on the table,

Thanks..

[dballance]

38. No, it is not what the President ran on

I don't remember him in any speech saying that our commitment to getting out of Afghanistan would help give us some sort of surplus just because we won't continue spending money on yet another unnecessary war. I do believe he said something to the effect of we should do nation building here at home. By spending on our desperately pathetic and deteriorating infrastructure as one means. But that will be deficit spending in the most likely case. I agree with him on this even if it is deficit spending.

He ran on raising the tax rates for the highest 2% of income earners to raise revenue. In Feb of 2012 his administration proposed a budget plan much like the one he submitted to the GOP house recently. Revenue increases and cuts to entitlement spending. In the universe where I learned what the word "balanced" means that seems balanced.

As usual the GOP house heads exploded and they spent more time on the TV news commenting on how unreasonable the President's plan is than working to come up with something reasonable.

And, as usual, their counter proposal just like the Romney/Ryan budget plan has no details and is really nothing more than policy statements.

Obama could submit a budget proposal to the GOP entitled "How We'll End Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Payments" and the GOP heads would still explode and they'd still say he was being unreasonable.

[ProSense]

42. Oh, I see

"No, it is not what the President ran on...I don't remember him in any speech saying that our commitment to getting out of Afghanistan would help give us some sort of surplus just because we won't continue spending money on yet another unnecessary war."

...you weren't paying attention, and I never used the word "surplus."

"For months, I've been calling on Congress to take half the money we're no longer spending on war and use it to do some nation-building here at home," Obama said. "There's work to be done building roads and bridges and wireless networks. And there are hundreds of thousands of construction workers ready to do it."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/09/12645745-christie-endorses-obama-line-on-infrastructure

And while my opponent would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint Chiefs don’t even want, I will use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways. Because after two wars that have cost us thousands of live and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/07/remarks-president-democratic-national-convention

[dballance]

43. Then I stand corrected. /eom

[underoath]

44. hmm.. wth?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. If you have to mortgage something, what would you rather mortgage?

A new addition kitchen and bath to your house?

Or a vacation to Vegas?

[underoath]

10. Huh? I am saying that by ending the wars (which is something that needs to be done)

we will not have more money to spend, but less that goes into our debt.

am I wrong?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. And I am saying there are different kinds of debt. Good debt and bad debt.

Debt spent to build bridges roads and schools gives us an excellent return on our investment WHILE putting many people to work.

[Bake]

56. I'm going to VEGAS, BAYBEEEEEE!!

But only if I can do it on your dime ... I'm broke ...





Bake

[underoath]

6. I want the wars done with so it stops adding to our debt.

but if anyone thinks we can spend the money elsewhere, I have a bridge to sell ya in the desert.

[dionysus]

25. there will be deficit spending either way, but it's better to defecit spend on things that

bring a return on the investment.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. You have nothing to worry about. The optional Middle-East wars are not going to end.

In fact, we may have to invade oil-rich Iran because Syria may have "WMDs'.

[quinnox]

9. I think what is meant is we could spend the credit card on other things instead

but I still think your point is well taken in that we did borrow most of the money for the wars in the first place, and this is not often a focus of the debate, and so I recommended it.

[underoath]

11. Thank you.

that is the point I am trying to get across.

[sadbear]

18. War is not a very good investment. Infrastructure is.

That is, we're like to see a return on our investment if we spend it on infrastructure. Kinda like renting vs. buying.

[underoath]

21. correct. war is not a good investment

but the point of my OP is that we will not be saving money by ending the wars, we will only have a smaller credit card bill.

[former-republican]

29. The cost of two wars

http://costofwar.com/

[underoath]

32. all that money is being put on a credit card. we do not have the money to pay for it

straight up.

[former-republican]

34. I know

[underoath]

36. now you get the point of my OP

[former-republican]

40. I never said I didn't

[underoath]

45. oh ok. my bad. it just didnt seem like you understood.

[LeftInTX]

39. Clicked the link: Currently spending about $10,000/minute

Yikes!!!

[SoCalDem]

30. Let's send GW a big ole bill for all the debt he ran up

That would go a long way towards solvency.

[underoath]

31. damn right it would!!!

[JaneyVee]

41. It wasn't even put on a credit card, it wasn't even on the books.

NOW it's on a credit card since Obama put the wars on the books.

[AlexSatan]

55. What?

It was on the books. It contributed to the debt each of those years. Just because it wasn't in the consolidated budget doesn't mean it still didn't have to be approved by Congress.

[Marinedem]

54. What OP is saying is like this.

I pay the neighbor $1,000 a month to let me walk into his yard and kick the fuck out of his dog. I've been doing this for a while, and am up to $64,000 in debt. Now, I realize that I'm beyond broke at this point, and as much as I like kicking Rufus, I simply can't afford to, so I stop paying on the Rufus abuse initiative.

The point is, I never really had that extra $1,000 a month to begin with, and I'm up to my eyeballs in dog kicking debt.

I can't start paying the guy down the street $1,000 a month to let me tickle his cat because of the "Savings" windfall of $1,000 a month I discovered, because I STILL don't fucking make enough money to make doing so fiscally sustainable!



*I don't kick dogs

[ProSense]

57. No,

You have a relatively new mortgage on a house. It's $1,500 a month including $1,200 in interest.

You're paying the mortgage, but you have to upkeep the house, which you really can't afford to do at the level you'd like to.

This situation is going to exist for at least 10 years. For the first two years, you're paying at least $20,000 in interest.

You inherit enough to pay off the house, and instead of paying $20,000 in interest over the next two years, you take that money and invest it in upkeeping your house. That is money saved (interest on the debt) and reinvested (upgrading the infrastructure).

[TheKentuckian]

58. Not exactly, I see your point but all spending or debt is not created equal

If instead of dog kicking or cat tickling you took out a loan to start a company, you potentially have a horse of a different color.

Investment has a payoff.

Buying gas to get to work on the credit card if you don't have the ca$h to do so is infinitely wiser than refusing to go into debt and as a consequence killing your ability to have income.

[billh58]

59. Slight flaw in your

thinking. If you have the income to pay the credit card debt down, and you add nothing more to the debt, at some point you then (wait for it...) have extra income to apply to other debt, to invest, or to buy new stuff.

[quaker bill]

61. A gap in your logic

It is clear that we are putting something on the charge card, but what? I think what we are putting on the charge card are "tax expenditures", basically, the various lowered rates, preferences and writeoffs republicans gave to the top of the income scale.

The tax expenditures are larger than the actual revenue collected, and roughly the size of the deficit with the wars included in the budget.

Of course this can be spun anyway one cares to go. Perhaps the war is being funded with cash, and social welfare payments are on the charge card. Perhaps it is weapons purchases going on the government visa card.... You pick the wars, but it is not necessarily so, and more importantly irrelevant. Spending less money is spending less money.