Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="av8torntn" data-source="post: 297958" data-attributes="member: 8259"><p>Ok if you really want to use projections it does make it more difficult but I will give it the old college try.</p><p> </p><p>You project the total cost of the war at 1.5 trillion. </p><p> </p><p>Social Security is 544 billion a year. Medicare is 325 billion and Medicaid is 186 billion. It becomes very difficult to project the costs of these social security programs and depending on who you read the future costs vary wildly. Also if you stop social security you will eliminate just under 5 trillion from the projected national debt. You can also take the 1.5 trillion the SSA has in its fund. </p><p> </p><p>The most liberal estimate of the direct cost of the Iraq war is 70 billion a year. Ok that is not true but I though for a second if you can project so can I.I know you say they just funded 150 billion for the war. There were significant expenses in all these emergency funding bill that have nothing to do with the direct cost of the war and are only there the skirt the current budget rules. With the elimination of one program in our first year we have now paid for all your projected future costs of the war and paid off half the projected national debt. </p><p> </p><p>Since we are using projections there will be no new national debt after 2012. </p><p> </p><p>If you want to leave people on social security that are on it now but stop all new people we are still left with 608 billion this year.</p><p> </p><p>Now we still have education at 56 billion a year and farm subsidies and other agriculture programs at 20 billion a year. Over the next ten years with very modest increases you can easily knock one trillion off the debt plus have that same one trillion to pay down on the debt.</p><p> </p><p>You project 10.7 trillion total. End social security and you knock out 2.2 trillion they have in assets. You now have 8.5 you subtract the one trillion that is to be spent this year and multiply that to 2012 for a total of 5 years or 5 trillion and you are now at 3.5 trillion. We add in education and agriculture we knock a trillion off and have a trillion to pay on the debt. We are now left at 1.5 trillion your projected cost of the war. I do not feel like going in to the discretionary spending part now but this gives you an idea of where I am going with all this. None of this even includes the projected budget surpluses.</p><p> </p><p>I used the numbers from the OMB since they are non partisan.</p><p> </p><p>You made a reference to an amount that has been requested to fund the war in Iraq. I thought you would be able to figure it out on your own but I saw where you did not. You and others want to take these funding amounts and project them for some kind of direct cost of the war. This is faulty for multiple reasons. You do not know what kind of force agreement we will have with Iraq from year to year. You do not know who our President is. Heck it is even possible that we may break the will of Al Queada in two years.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="av8torntn, post: 297958, member: 8259"] Ok if you really want to use projections it does make it more difficult but I will give it the old college try. You project the total cost of the war at 1.5 trillion. Social Security is 544 billion a year. Medicare is 325 billion and Medicaid is 186 billion. It becomes very difficult to project the costs of these social security programs and depending on who you read the future costs vary wildly. Also if you stop social security you will eliminate just under 5 trillion from the projected national debt. You can also take the 1.5 trillion the SSA has in its fund. The most liberal estimate of the direct cost of the Iraq war is 70 billion a year. Ok that is not true but I though for a second if you can project so can I.I know you say they just funded 150 billion for the war. There were significant expenses in all these emergency funding bill that have nothing to do with the direct cost of the war and are only there the skirt the current budget rules. With the elimination of one program in our first year we have now paid for all your projected future costs of the war and paid off half the projected national debt. Since we are using projections there will be no new national debt after 2012. If you want to leave people on social security that are on it now but stop all new people we are still left with 608 billion this year. Now we still have education at 56 billion a year and farm subsidies and other agriculture programs at 20 billion a year. Over the next ten years with very modest increases you can easily knock one trillion off the debt plus have that same one trillion to pay down on the debt. You project 10.7 trillion total. End social security and you knock out 2.2 trillion they have in assets. You now have 8.5 you subtract the one trillion that is to be spent this year and multiply that to 2012 for a total of 5 years or 5 trillion and you are now at 3.5 trillion. We add in education and agriculture we knock a trillion off and have a trillion to pay on the debt. We are now left at 1.5 trillion your projected cost of the war. I do not feel like going in to the discretionary spending part now but this gives you an idea of where I am going with all this. None of this even includes the projected budget surpluses. I used the numbers from the OMB since they are non partisan. You made a reference to an amount that has been requested to fund the war in Iraq. I thought you would be able to figure it out on your own but I saw where you did not. You and others want to take these funding amounts and project them for some kind of direct cost of the war. This is faulty for multiple reasons. You do not know what kind of force agreement we will have with Iraq from year to year. You do not know who our President is. Heck it is even possible that we may break the will of Al Queada in two years. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
Top