One Hundred Fifty Billion Dollars

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
Hmmm... There seems to be something weird going on here with your source. I remember that Reagan's deficits were something like 6% of the economy at their worst, but the accounts you reference show 4.71% at its worst. Could be the fiscal year/calendar year difference, I guess.

The difference is that the 6% you remember is the figure for net lending for the whole government sector (table 3.1, line 33) - maybe you are looking at the figure for 'Current surplus or deficit, national income and product accounts' for the Federal sector? (Table 3.2, line 36)

BTW are you aware that the IMF is forecasting a deficit (using the net lending definition) of 6% of GDP for the US this year? (and 5.6% in 2004)

Originally posted by DanS
Some individual years make Bush look like a spending increase amateur. The '50-'51 increase was 4.6 percentage points, immediately followed by another 3.4 percentage point increase in '51-'52!

Well more than all of that increase came from a rise in defence spending, however less than half of Bush's rise (1.0% of 2.2%) has come from that source - and as i'm sure you'll agree civilian spending is much harder to cut than crisis/war defence spending.

[DanS]

however less than half of Bush's rise (1.0% of 2.2%) has come from that source

Yes. In other words, the military budget grew, but not by much in the scheme of things.

and as i'm sure you'll agree civilian spending is much harder to cut than crisis/war defence spending

At the federal level. Yes, that's my point. Maybe it's not a one-off affair, but it's eventually it will not recur because we have succeeded or we have given up on the affair. As an aside, this might not be the case at the state and local level.

One of the interesting things to note in the NIPA account figures is that it seems likely that we are shrinking the size of all government over time. So far, about 2 percentage point difference between this spike ('03) and last two business cycle spikes ('82 and '92).

[DanS]

BTW are you aware that the IMF is forecasting a deficit (using the net lending definition) of 6% of GDP for the US this year? (and 5.6% in 2004)

Yes, I am aware of that.

Edit: I am aware of that, but it doesn't seem to make sense (and didn't when I read it). Taking line 24 for the last two quarters on table 3.1 divided by GDP for Q1 and Q2 in table 1.1, we have something like -4.4% net lendings for all levels of gov't.

It would have had to deterioriate massively in Q3. We'll see. They found an extra $25 billion in revenues that they weren't expecting in Q3, as I mentioned in the GDP thread.

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
Edit: I am aware of that, but it doesn't seem to make sense (and didn't when I read it). Taking line 24 for the last two quarters on table 3.1 divided by GDP for Q1 and Q2 in table 1.1, we have something like -4.4% net lendings for all levels of gov't.

I myself thought it was a bit on the high side (the OECD's forcast was for 4.6% of GDP) - I asuumed this was to do with the latest tax cut.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Originally posted by DanS
One of the interesting things to note in the NIPA account figures is that it seems likely that we are shrinking the size of all government over time. So far, about 2 percentage point difference between this spike ('03) and last two business cycle spikes ('82 and '92).

Well as defence spending is now around 2 percentage points lower than then that would be expected.

If you exclude defence and interest payments from Total Government spending then the current level is the highest ever in relation to GDP (around 24% compared to peaks of 23% in 1982 and 1975, and a long-term trend of 19% to 22%)

[DanS]

While interesting to show that social spending has increased, mostly I think that the defense spending reduction and some social spending substitution is natural and should be included in any analysis. We're no longer at general war, like we had been for 50 years. Going through the cold war, I never realized that a general peace was the normal way that the world worked. My pocketbook very much enjoys the general peace. It is a very good thing for humanity.

Likewise, I think the paydown of WWI and WWII debt should be included in any analysis. It was a real expense, after all, just like this $150 billion...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Constantly in debt? Just two years ago we had a surplus bigger then the entire bidget of most states. How does that equal constantly in debt in your mind?

That was the current year budget surplus. Take a look at the total state bonded indebtedness, including bonds where the state is the guarantor. It's well into 12 figures.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Vietnam had nothing to do with our lack of military skill, it was that our leaders didn't have enough political skill to let us use it. in there defense though, they were only liberal democrats, can't expect too much out of them. (even with their interferance 56,000 to 2 million over 12 years makes Vietnam one of our best on record by the numbers. 2 million is Vietnams number btw, ours is 3).

By the way, Vietnam is a perfect example of what happens when we let people such as yourself, Cruddy, have imput inot military/political desicions. Thank you for illustrating that brilliantly with your acinine comment.

[mod mode]

Keep the personal comments out.

[/mod mode]

[post mode]

Gee, I never knew Nixon was a liberal Democrat. Learn something new and profound every day.

Body count ratios are pretty meaningless when your enemy (a) simply has to be a pain in your ass over the long term; (b) is supported by hostile superpowers who invest little of their effort to tie up a lot of your forces; and (c) don't really give a **** about their own losses.

The US simply did not have a long term strategic interest in Viet Nam that would ever have allowed the political climate for a long term occupation and garrisoning of the entire country, or the two-divisions let's invade Hanoi chairborne ranger Rambo fantasy, or pretty much any other scenario the "we kicked their ass, it was the politicians" crowd has been able to come up with. Simple fact is that war and politics are inseparable once you get very far above the worm's eye view of the 11-Bravo.

[Patroklos]

When discussing military spending relative, you have to take into account.

1) value of currency, 1 billion now isn't what it was then

2) not all of those presidents dealt with operational budgets.

And as far as the Balkains, the forces present when their was something to DO there besides watch the Kosavars use American aid dollars were overwhelmingly American (I remember the French though, you aiforce did some good work there).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Your from Nebraska...that list must be rather huge.

Yep. Warren Buffet, Johnny Carson, Marlon Brando, The Koolaid Man, etc...

Me!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Space05us
Wyoming probably has more money, California is constantly in debt trying to buy power and water off of other states.

Every state in the union is in debt.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos
1). The figures are right about most of the money bieng used fro the military. As far as procurment (as this is what I do) we have SECURED (that is important in the world of military spending) funds for Carriers, the Littoral Warfare Ships, the converisn of 2 SLBM sub to SLGN subs, The Destroyer program is on track and paid for. Joint Strike Fighter is a go, F-22 was saved, as well as research none of us will know about for some time.

And how much of this procurement is specifically related to the amount in question appropriated with respect to the war in Iraq and subsequent occupation? That's the $150B in discussion.

We know were the money is going, and it is not so much an extra expediture as a restoring the stripped military budget from the Clinton years to its needed level. The current level is no where near the highest it has been.

On the procurement side, yes, Clinton stripped things pretty bare, as well as on the operational side for the Army. The current procurement level is not the highest it has been, but the cost of ongoing operations (much of which is not yet booked, but AFV's etc. wear out) is very high.

2). As far as pissing away money we could be using here in the states, liberals have would piss it away far faster here than Iraq could ever do. They have perfected sink hole spending for 30 years. I find it HILARIOUS that liberal/socialist/eurocom whatever you ares are critisizing a conservative Republican administration for throwing money away on hopeless programs. Talk about hipocrits.

Nice way of ducking the issue. YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT CUZ THE LIBRULS WOULDA DONE WORSE!!!!

BTW, anyone here have any idea how many people are employed building a Destroyer, how about an Aircraft Carrier. Money on the military filters down (not 100%) because guess who we buy the majority of our stuff from.

I commute past NASSCO's yards every day. Business goes up, then down, then up, then down. Procure a new Nimitz class carrier, and you have a few years building, then a few decades operating. It is sporadic employment, and one of the long-term problems facing the military procurement system is maintaining enough potential builders of different systems to have some real competition in pricing. Programs like the B-1, B-2 and Seawolf end up being bloated, and are jokes in terms of their cost to combat effectiveness ratio. The B-1 costs us how much for a glorified standoff ALCM delivery platform?

3). Anyone also want to guess what it cost to play the Iraq thing the UN way for the last twelve years. We are talking at least one carrier battlegroup In the Persian Gulf at any one time. The airbases and forward deployed aircraft and troops, logistics staff, etc. ect. We easily spent over 200 billion a year maintaining those forces but that was Okay with you all.

Got an extra zero or two in there, or did you just grab a number to throw around? Or would you care to explain in detail how the operational budget for one CVN battle group, a rapid reaction brigade and CentCom staff cost more per year than the entire operational budget for all US forces worldwide?

Not to mention the convenient fallacy that the only policy choices were indefinite continuation of NFZ enforcement and sanctions.

And occupation (especially when we can't do it right because we have interferance from whiny no nothing punks) takes time, it was expected to take a few years. Despite what you heard from anyone, the military always knew this (bieng obvious and all).

I agree with your assessment of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Shinseki spelled it out, but unfortunately, reality wouldn't have worked out politically, so Rumsfeld yanked Shinseki's chain and the civilian chairborne corps in the white house and Pentagon went on their merry way.

4). And then there is that whole thing about there being no action that would please most of you. No matter what Bush did we would still be on a similar thread listining to you spout rhetoric fron an idealogical rather than pragmatic standpoint. World sucks, people die, wars happen. Just because most of you posters live in little bubbles of peace and prosperity maintained by the very people you attack so often doesn't mean the outside word works that way.

Funny, you start off congratulating people about being "semi-civil" then you're the most (if not only) insulting poster here. The pragmatic reality is that Saddam didn't have the offensive capability to punch through a wet paper bag, and he was not about to aquire that capability in any time frame that necessitated the current commitment of force. He was just another delusional third world *******.

And a personal note form me. All the Euros who bach at our insistance on being in contol of the Iraq operation. We are the best at this whole military thing. We pay for NATO and the UN anyways, our terms are not outrageous. UN had a plan to deal with Saddam and Iraq, it was stupid and doomed to fail and did.

If the US wants to "be in control" fine, but it's a little disingenuous to go with hat in hand asking for money and troops then sulking when supposed "allies" won't readily be lackeys.

BTW, by the UN "plan" if you're referring to the existing array of UNSCRs dating back to 1990, those were drafted primarily by the US, most by the first Bush administration.

Ours is working, however slowely, get over it.

We own the ground. Since there is yet to be anything resembling an end result, and there won't be for some time, it's nothing more than cheerleading to say that it's working. We don't get points for close, or for partial completion.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Patroklos
When discussing military spending relative, you have to take into account.

1) value of currency, 1 billion now isn't what it was then

What part of real defence spending don't you understand? - you really ought to read things through first eh?

Originally posted by Patroklos
2) not all of those presidents dealt with operational budgets.

OK, when have american presidents had that power and when have they not?

Originally posted by Patroklos
And as far as the Balkains, the forces present when their was something to DO there besides watch the Kosavars use American aid dollars were overwhelmingly American (I remember the French though, you aiforce did some good work there).

The french did do a good job (they committed more planes than we did) - but where was the 'majority' of US forces in Bosnia or Macedonia, and in Kosovo you did not have the 'majority' (i.e. over 50%) of the forces - your commitment was bigger than any other country, but was still underepresented in relation to your overall military strength.

From your comments (especially the one about the cost of contaning iraq costing $200bn a year) you seem to have done zero research into the subject, I suggest that you correct this if you want to be taken seriously.

[Kuciwalker]

This has turned into the economics thread

[el freako]

Well maybe you can benefit from it mr "we are loaning them money"