Re: "You are STILL a large distance from the cost of those other wars."
Yes I know. And, I'm pretty sure so do the economists who produced the analysis of 'Iraq/Afghanistan War costs'.
They did NOT say that we had *already* matched the expenses of the Vietnam or Korean Wars... but that we were on trend to do so considering ongoing expenditures and future debt repayment costs. (Since nearly all of the current costs of Iraq are direct additions to the federal deficit, repayment expenses for that debt are quite germaine to the 'cost' calculus.)
(And, that seems a reasonable projection to me... considering that we are fast approaching 1/2 Trillion SPENT, it looks like the *second* half Trillion of cost is a reasonable expectation.)
Re: "But YOU want to completely ignore that fact."
Nope. I do not.
"If those wars were aid in real time, explain these: Federal budget surplus (debt) 1950 -3B, 1951 6B, 1952 -1.5B, etc."
OK. As a percent of GNP, the occasional annual deficits you might see in that time span were *trivial*, NOTHING LIKE the deficits we are running NOW. (For example: LBJ posted 3 annual surpluses, and only one very minor annual deficit for his four year span....)
"In 1943, the federal gov't spent 243% of its income!"
Yes, I know! But, as you will remember... I did not say that the costs of Iraq/Afghanistan were anywhere in the same ball park as the 'global war' of WW II (or to the American Civil War for that matter), and neither did the authors of that study.
Clearly BOTH the Civil War and WW II were FAR MORE EXPENSIVE then Iraq/Afghanistan --- but the costs of Iraq/Afghanistan to the American taxpayers are fast closing on the costs (in real terms) of Vietnam, Korea, and of WW I.
And, in direct expenditures for reconstruction, recently released government figures show we have *already* spent as much on 're-building' in IRAQ as we did on Germany after WW II... and TWICE what we did on re-building in Japan after the war. |
