I'd have to double check the numbers before I took them too seriously, but I am surprised if the cost of war is really that little of the deficit. Of course, getting out of a major recession is a double whammy - lost tax revenue plus priming the pump spending....and keeping folks without jobs off the bread line.
These numbers may be skewed by things like not counting the payback of loans from the auto makers and banks and can't show what the deficit might have been if no action was taken.
In the article you linked to, Randall Hovin wondered where the "$3 trillion" estimate of the cost came from. I wondered about that too - that's an awfully big discrepancy from the $709 billion that Hoven quotes.
There is an explanation of where that number comes from here
Basically, it is the (direct cost) + (interest on money borrowed to pay the direct cost) + (long-term veterans health care cost) + (replacement value of equipment worn out or destroyed)
All but one of these expenses are items that have not been paid yet, but will have to be paid in the near future.
So, about $709 billion has been spent to date, but the estimate is that the rest of the $3 trillion will need to be paid by about 2017.
I haven't gotten too far into the numbers, but they were produced by the CBO, so there's some truth to them. As for future costs, well those are utterly dwarfed by the future costs of our social spending liabilities. The ratio is going to stay as small as it looks in this chart or get even smaller in the future.
What is meant by "direct cost" of the war? Does that cost include all of the following: training and provisions for the troops, weapons, vehicles, payroll, healthcare, plus whatever other costs there are?? Is that $709 billion broken down by item anywhere? That said, I don't waste my time reading government-supplied data anyway.
5 comments:
I'd have to double check the numbers before I took them too seriously, but I am surprised if the cost of war is really that little of the deficit. Of course, getting out of a major recession is a double whammy - lost tax revenue plus priming the pump spending....and keeping folks without jobs off the bread line.
These numbers may be skewed by things like not counting the payback of loans from the auto makers and banks and can't show what the deficit might have been if no action was taken.
Wasn't the cost of the War not actually included in the budget prior to 2009?
In the article you linked to, Randall Hovin wondered where the "$3 trillion" estimate of the cost came from. I wondered about that too - that's an awfully big discrepancy from the $709 billion that Hoven quotes.
There is an explanation of where that number comes from here
Basically, it is the (direct cost) + (interest on money borrowed to pay the direct cost) + (long-term veterans health care cost) + (replacement value of equipment worn out or destroyed)
All but one of these expenses are items that have not been paid yet, but will have to be paid in the near future.
So, about $709 billion has been spent to date, but the estimate is that the rest of the $3 trillion will need to be paid by about 2017.
I haven't gotten too far into the numbers, but they were produced by the CBO, so there's some truth to them. As for future costs, well those are utterly dwarfed by the future costs of our social spending liabilities. The ratio is going to stay as small as it looks in this chart or get even smaller in the future.
What is meant by "direct cost" of the war? Does that cost include all of the following: training and provisions for the troops, weapons, vehicles, payroll, healthcare, plus whatever other costs there are?? Is that $709 billion broken down by item anywhere? That said, I don't waste my time reading government-supplied data anyway.
Post a Comment