Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (13168)	3/20/2012 5:36:33 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

What part of that trillion would have been spent if the troops stayed home ? 80% ?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (13168)	3/20/2012 7:55:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Get that? The wars using your numbers could pay for the SS deficit for 17.85 years. 18 years at the current deficit for SS, but the SS deficit will go up as more baby boomers retire (it may initially go down first as the economy improves, and if the tax rate is returned to the previous rate). But more important than that point is your comparing the total cost of the wars, to a tiny fraction of the cost of social security. SS cost $817.5bil/year and rising. None of which means I'm cheering "war is great" "lets have more wars and spend more on war". War is destructive and expensive. I'm just pointing out that the budgetary costs of the recent wars are a minor part of our current fiscal situation and an insignificant part of our long term fiscal situation. Now since in reality the cost of the war will be much MUCH more - at least 3.2 TRILLION, lets use that final figure. That gives a time frame of OVER 57 YEARS. More, but the $3.2 bil cost is an overestimate. And even if accepted is the cost forever (if we cost Social Security at that level, including treating 100% of its spending as if it was borrowed, and allowing no discounting for future incurred costs, its costs would be in the quadrillions, or really infinite if you assume it lasts forever). We have hard data on what has been spent. A bit over $1tril for the wars. Its many times that for Social Security. (the data is part of the public record, but I've never seen it in that format, I'd have to look up each years spending since the program's inception, then to do a proper comparison I'd adjust both figures for inflation, it would be a lot of work, so I'm not presenting that data at this time). And the wars are winding down (yes eventually there will be new ones, but total war spending throughout US history is less than Social Security spending, even though Social Security hasn't been around nearly as long), while Social Security is growing. that doesn't even take into account that the SS has a surplus 1 - It doesn't anymore. 2 - A "surplus" just means that there is a tax that is connected that brings in more money. It doesn't make the program one penny cheaper. If the federal personal income tax was called "the defense tax", then defense would "have a surplus" by your way of accounting for it, but I doubt you'd argue that we shouldn't try to contain defense spending because of its "surplus". The cost of the programs is the amount spent.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (13168)	3/20/2012 10:16:48 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Great post Steve. It provides perfect perspective. "Tim, you need to get a grip on the numbers you are using! <<<<The $3.2tril+ figure is in total, and not even in total for what we have already spent (which is only a bit above $1tril)>>>>> Craziness conservative economics! You try to kiss off the cost of the wars as nothing and at the same time take the outrageous position that SS is broke! So lets take your figure for the cost of the wars - 1 TRILLION. SS is running a deficit of 56 billion a year - ACCORDING TO YOUR NUMBERS. So taking all your numbers and divide 56 billion into 1 TRILLION and you get 17.85 years. Get that? The wars using your numbers could pay for the SS deficit for 17.85 years. Now since in reality the cost of the war will be much MUCH more - at least 3.2 TRILLION, lets use that final figure. That gives a time frame of OVER 57 YEARS. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd, that doesn't even take into account that the SS has a surplus as it has been taken out of every Americans check. That money is there. And only with the most crazy childish maneuvers can anyone pretend it is not. Tim - SS is NOT our problem.