We Haven't Started To Pay For This Damned War Yet

From this week's Barron's

Apart from the anguishing, inexorable rise in the casualty toll, the cost of our engagement has been mounting remorselessly and, by year's end, cumulatively may well reach three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Ironically, but not surprisingly, as David Rosenberg of Merrill Lynch recently observed, the enormous expenditures necessary have acted as a significant stimulus to the economy.

But the bill, as it were, for the whole messy business has merely been deferred. The uncalculated but obviously humongous price, in economic drag and budgetary strains, will have to be paid, most likely, of course, on the next president's watch.

From the Treasury Department:

09/30/2006   $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

Total Debt Outstanding: $9,016,288,006,279.21

A Note From President George W. Bush to the future generations of America:

Here's the total cost for my stupidity.  I thought you could cut taxes, increase spending and go to war all at the same time and it would work out OK.  I was wrong.  Sorry.

•  This scares the hell out of me.

  Beyond the nearly 4000 servicemembers killed and the 20,000+ wounded, the monetary costs of this war are staggering. Our deficits would be much worse if we did not include the social security surplus in the mix. My kids and my unborn grand kids will be paying for W's mistakes for the rest of their lives.

  by blue jersey mom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:04:33 AM PDT

  •  we already start paying this war

    no, it's not in term of paying down  IOU, but in term of influence.

    If you observe. Taiwan was seeking support for full UN membership. They were counting on us, and China Olympic to grease up their effort.  But China push back and start dumping treasury. Bush shut up right up quick. (this was a big event. But nobody makes a not. China quit showing up on treasury auction twice. And the number shows up in report, market jitter.)

    And china hasn't even begin dumping treasury yet.

    second of course the dollar is hitting 15 years low against global currency. And it just begun.

    by fugue on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:12:47 AM PDT

    •  Agree completely. Since we have tortured

      prisoners and kept "enemy combatants" in Gitmo without trials, we are in no position to criticize the human rights violations of our countries. Our ability to influence world politics has lessened. Our army has been stratched to the breaking point. and for what--so W could try to show that he could invade Iraq when his father didn't. In my view, the Iraq War marks the end of the American Century.

      by blue jersey mom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:18:21 AM PDT

      •  Apparently the New American Century

        envisioned by PNAC is one where America has no/little real influence, huge debt, a broken military--essentially a great big third-world country attached to Canada.

        Sean

        by whytwolf on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:42:29 AM PDT

        •  maybe the PNAC's real plan all along

          to destroy the US economy and world power.
          People have claimed that some are ex marxist in all but name. and they would have been the radicals in 68 or so.
          In the words of Baldrick "a cunning plan"

          by Ferrofluid on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:44:20 PM PDT

    •  Hmmmmm...

      What possible difference could it make that China has us by the balls?  

      /snark

      Just one more thing to thank Bush for.

      by rlamoureux on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:24:32 AM PDT

    •  Foreclosures are making Iraq Harder to Finance

      These bundles of debt that getting tradedd internationally are getting harder to sell.

      by bernardpliers on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:49:23 AM PDT

      •  Will the economic sheet hit the fan

        before November 2008 or after?

        by Ptah the Great on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:01:24 AM PDT

        •  Sooner.

          My money (heh -- what money?) is on next spring sometime.  March/April.

          by Noor B on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:14:57 AM PDT

          •  I can't understand why the Dems do not send W

            an Iraq War supplemental that is linked to the repeal of the Bush tax cuts and a more steeply progressive income tax or surtax to pay for the war. Force him to veto the funding for his own war.

            by blue jersey mom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:18:46 AM PDT

            •  Instead, they're passing on the bill to our kids

              Talk about taxation w/o representation.  Personally, I'd like to see a surtax on Big Oil given their profits and given the fact that this war was initiated, at least in part for their benefit.

              At this point, however, I'd just like to see the tab paid now, and I'm not picky about the details.  We have to have pay/go for domestic programs, but this utter abomination is on a credit card that we'll bequeath to future generations.  It's a total cop-out by the Dems.

              by RFK Lives on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:24:07 AM PDT

              •  BTW, I'm wondering what I'll tell my kids...

                10-15 years from now when they figure out what was done to them now.  They're 15 and 12 now, so they don't realize what a burden they're being saddled w/ for a war that never should've been initiated and that has been mishandled in every way possible.

                by RFK Lives on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:27:19 AM PDT

                •  Mine Do

                  I remind them frequently that I hate George W. Bush because he is ruining their future.

                  by slippytoad on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:52:17 AM PDT

                  •  Now, now

                    Because we won't be able to pay for social services and infrastructure, government will simply need to be cut back.  All government REALLY needs to do is guard the wealth of the top 3%, right?  

                    After all, the largesse of the top 3% is what creates jobs for the rest of us peons.

                    Won't that be a good lesson for our kids?  Won't that teach them self-reliance?

                    But seriously, it's going to crash in the next 10 years.

                    by gsbadj on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:06:36 AM PDT

                •  Tell them to get their education

                  so that they can immigrate to a country that isn't bankrupt.

                  by ilex on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:28:09 AM PDT

                  •  An American education'll be worthless anyway n/t

                    Sean

                    by whytwolf on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:44:15 AM PDT

                    •  What utter nonsense

                      the world beats a path to the US to get education. By any measure the best universities in the world are still in the US.

                      by daisycolorado on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:32:35 PM PDT

                      •  Who gets the best K-12 equivalent?

                        US or other?

                        How many Americans could get into Oxford or Cambridge?

                        by freelunch on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:26:13 PM PDT

                        •  My oldest son is in a PhD program at Cambridge.

                          He is a product of the local K-12 public schools here in NJ. Granted, he did have a nearly perfect GPA from one of the top universities in this country as an undergraduate, but he was accepted to Cambridge for both an MPhil and a PhD.

                          by blue jersey mom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:34:44 PM PDT

                          •  Congratulations

                            The problem is not in graduate school, it is undergrad. America does send a fair number of students to Oxbridge as grad students, but our K-12 education is so different that few, even those who easily qualify for the American equivalents (Ivy League, MIT, Caltech, etc) would not be able to pass enough A-levels needed to get into Oxford or Cambridge.

                            by freelunch on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:38:02 PM PDT

                        •  K-12 in the US sucks

                          The difference is that most k-12 is government dominated, excessively bureaucratic and sinking rapidly under the weight of NCLB.  

                          Private sector competition is what makes US universities the best in the world.

                          by daisycolorado on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:03:56 PM PDT

                  •  My friend who commutes to work with baby in tow..

                    ... brought up politics lately. We've never spoken about it since the baby is usually our focus.

                    She'd told me that her 7 year old daughter (whom I met last year) was interested in the environment and recently confided in her mom that she wanted to help save the rain forests. She brought up politics a little apoligetically, not wanting to alienate me. Of course we confirmed what we'd each expected, that we both believe that Bush is ruining everything.

                    She said that theirs was a very Democratic household and thought that her little girl was probably the only 4 year old (in 2004) who mourned the fact that Bush got re-elected.

                    The child's feelings were fueled by Bush's environmental record (her dad is a science teacher.) It'll be quite a while before this beautiful little girl comprehends the full extent of how Bush has ruined her future.

                    I told her that I was now an Independent, having lost all respect and confidence in the Democratic Party. She agreed with that too.

                    My little grandson, six years old, is fully aware of how Bush has hurt our country. He is just too cute when he refers to "George W. Bush."

                    He has heard us (and his parents and other grandparents) discussions and has aquired a distrust of all things Bush.

                    Frankly, I was surprised and amazed how little children pick up on and understand what's going on in the world.

                    I am more motivated to participate and protest because of my beautiful little grandson. It gives me real hope knowing that children as young as 4 to six years old can sense the urgency of their elders' concern.

                    On the other hand, my young nieces and nephews are smothered with religion and are ignorant of anything "of the world."

                    by third Party please on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:04:03 PM PDT

                    •  I've never tried to actively

                      drag my kid into my "George Bush sucks" viewpoint but rather to teach her basic guiding principles. Getting those principles, though, sort of leads one to "George Bush sucks." She's too polite to use those words, but she gets it.

                      -5.88, -6.82

                      by Debby on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:33:41 PM PDT

                •  if you and they are somewhere other than

                  America when they figure this out, they'll congratulate you on getting the family out while the getting is good.

                  If you aren't, they'll be saying . . . something else.

                  The most intelligent thing my parents ever did was bail out of MI in 1963 before it became part of the Rust Belt.

                  by alizard on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:03:00 PM PDT

                •  RFK lives

                  tell your kids about RFK and why this could be a different world

                  that's what you tell them

                  by blue71340 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:24:43 PM PDT

              •   . . . which is all politicians of both parties

                . . . do nowadays--especially in California, but nationally as well.  It's called "bipartisanship," and makes for wonderful joint photo opportunities for thieves calling themselves "Republicans" to be shown "working with" thieves calling themselves "Democrats" to finance our orgies by stealing from the future.

                by keikekaze on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:58:01 PM PDT

              •  Any industry specific tax will always be

                passed on to the consumer. The only way to do it is to make it an income tax, progressively graded.

                by Nimbus on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:36:21 PM PDT

              •  Dem cop-out

                Oh to remember those days past (2006), when the Dems used to talk about fiscal responsibility and not spending more money without either cutting somewhere else or raising the revenue.

                i haven't heard a peep out of the Dems about fiscal responsibility when it comes to money for Iraq.

                by gsbadj on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:52:24 AM PDT

            •  I think that's an excellent idea

              I have written to my Senators and Rep suggesting the same and will phone their offices on Monday.  Also had an LTE published in the local paper this week.  My main points were to stop the "emgergency" supplementals, go through normal budgeting process for $10 billion/month and fund from current revenues.  The "emergency" supplemental no longer makes sense 4 1/2 years into this thing when we can forecast the monthly burn rate.

              If Congress does not have the courage to include a timeline, and unfortunately it seems they don't, then at least ask Americans to pay for it now.  All the hyperbole about funding the troops is hollow if you just want to borrow to do so and let a future generation pay the bill.
               

              by rlteiken on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:38:07 AM PDT

            •  I suggested this back in March

              Pay for Bush's Iraq Request by raising taxes on the Wealthy

              by Lefty Coaster on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:41:29 AM PDT

            •  No Supplemental At All

              I don't see why they're funding this war with any supplementals at all at this point.  This war is a surprise?  Please.

              Any funding should be in the regular Defense appropriation and Bush should be faced with prospect of having to veto that.  Let him fight with his generals who might see their pet projects getting terminated and Congress members faced with the prospect of defense contractors in their districts having to lay people off.  That would force compromises on exactly what is in the bill.  No more supplementals - period.

              by PrahaPartizan on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:55:27 AM PDT

        •  After the Election, The Economy Goes Off A Cliff

          Consider what happened just this week

          1. Oil just hit $80, even after OPEC pledged increase production.

          2. The Euro hit $1.39

          3. The Fed is cutting rates to prevent foreclosures, but that means the dollar will drop more.

          Long term this means nobody is going to want to give us credit.

          They'll keep this afloat until after the elction, and then they'll let us crash HARD.

          And on the other hand, a big chunk of the polar ice cap suddenly collapsed and it looks like Greenland is about to  melt at a catastrophic rate. So it's looking really bad.

          Me? I'm going to buy some canning jars, a kerosene stove, and a few things that I expect to be in very short supply in a couple years.

          by bernardpliers on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:33:53 AM PDT

          •  And pray tell,

            where you are going to get the kerosene???

            by Ptah the Great on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:43:39 AM PDT

            •  Oh Crap, I Forgot The Kerosene!

              Actually, kerosene is stable for years, and for cooking purposes kerosene = diesel fuel = home heating oil, if you get a 3rd world style stove with a cotton wick and leave a window open.

              by bernardpliers on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:59:35 PM PDT

              •  = Jet Fuel

                Just run out to the airport and buy a gallon or two.

                by freelunch on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:41:24 PM PDT

          •  I've air-tight sealed some things (rice, noodles)

            and am going by the recommendations of the posted survival guides (sorry I can't find my print-outs) here to establish stores in my home.

            My Bible-thumping, Bush loving, McMansion/SUV/time-share owning sister went out and bought a shitload of duct tape back when. She awaits the rapture.

            by third Party please on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:11:27 PM PDT

            •  Sealed containers

              Next year I'll get some cases of canning jars, and put rice, salt, sugar in storage in jars. I fully expect at some point the canning jars themselves will be valuable and very scarce.

              by bernardpliers on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:02:46 PM PDT

            •  should I ask

              just what she thinks she'll be doing with the duct tape in the event of the rapture?

              AFAIK, the word "hamster" is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, let alone what one should do with it.

              by alizard on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:05:15 PM PDT

          •  If no one wants to give us credit

            then why have the interest rates on long term US Treasuries been going down the past month?

            by daisycolorado on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:33:31 PM PDT

            •  flight to safety

              Whenever there's a scare, money managers park large sums in US Treasuries.  One way to know the economic convulsion is ending is to follow rates on these bonds, if they start going up, the big money assumes the crisis is over.  That said, if some managers become suspicious of the dollar's value, they'll switch to euro bonds, and the American Dream will have ended.

              by melvynny on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:24:25 PM PDT

              •  Must be an awfully long flight

                since 10 year Treasury rates at the peak of the Clinton surpluses in 2000 were above 6% and today they are 4.5%.

                And even before this crisis, the highest they have been in the past three years has been 5.25%.  

                by daisycolorado on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:57:49 PM PDT

                •  except

                  At that time, the world was different--going rates were different.  You judge rates in relative, not absolute terms.

                  by melvynny on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:03:35 PM PDT

          •  Get a wood cook stove

            That can burn many different things. If you live near any woods, you can keep it going.

            They actually work quite well, once you get the hang of them. I used one for 6 years or so. Make sure your wood is very dry if you want to boil pasta.

            by splashy on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:04:42 PM PDT

            •  A solar oven

              is a nice addition and works well a good part of the year... depending on where you live.  

              by ScienceMom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:42:27 PM PDT

            •  build a rocket stove.

              very fuel efficient and suplemented with an outdoor earthen oven (and a solar oven too), should cover all a person's cooking needs fairly well.

              by DawnG on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:31:00 PM PDT

          •  Why wait?

            They'll keep this afloat until after the elction, and then they'll let us crash HARD.

            Why don't you think this will happen on dubya's watch?  It's already starting.

            by playon on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:08:21 PM PDT

            •  It might

              but they'll obfuscate it for the next 14 months

              by ScrewySquirrel on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:16:56 PM PDT

    •  What about the social costs??

      All those kids without fathers and mothers, or whose fathers and mothers need long term care, leading to hours alone as the remaining parent works to pay for care, works to pay for clothes and shoes and books, leading to more kids in poverty, leading to more unsupervised time, leading to more anti-social behavior, leading to more fistifhgts in school, more frazzled parent's nerves, more yelling and screaming athte dinner table, and more abuse and poverty and addictions and early pregnancy and all the major indicators of a life spent unable to fulfill one's potential.

      Boehner is wrong, it is not only the lives of our service memebers it is the ones who are directly affected by their death or injury, their children and the terrible social costs we will have to pay for all this.

      Damn you to hell, George Bush...

      by Sourmash on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 03:50:44 AM PDT

    •  Not to mention lives n/t

      by coral on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:57:43 AM PDT

    •  what year was the Treaty of Versailles?

      and when did WWII start? The price to be paid will be enormous - don't realy want to outline this on a Sunday morning except to say that the monetary costs will be the very least of the problems this war will cause.

      I'd say this is amongst my greatest disappointments in all the discourse on the war - it's as if everyone in the msm had never taken a freaking history course. History will be unforgiving.

      by karlpk on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:49:53 AM PDT

      •  A Truce, Not a Peace

        To answer your questions - 1919 and 1939 (official start if you forget Spain in 1936).  The real question arises regarding great power war.  The US possessed sufficient resources in 2000 to guide the global environment for probably forty years.  Bush has most likely reduced that to ten and he's pissed of many of the rising great powers as well.  I just hope that mankind will be able to read about his legacy and won't have to be digging it out of glass-blasted middens.

        by PrahaPartizan on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:24:31 AM PDT

  •  Paying in the future (diary pimp here)

    I just this morning completed the first part of a diary I've been working on, off an on, for 4 months, in which I examine what US sovereign bankruptcy would look like (based on the bestseller "Bankruptcy 1995"), and why it hasn't happened yet.  I'll be posting it within the hour.

    If anyone can help me by explaining how to get an excel graph into a diary, I'd be much appreciative.

    Cheers.

    by New Deal democrat on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:26:53 AM PDT

    •  You must mean

      this diary.  I'll check it out.

      by Liberal Protestant on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:48:20 AM PDT

    •  This may help you

      An HTML Primer

      If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:05:33 AM PDT

      •  Thanks very much! n/t

        by New Deal democrat on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:10:22 AM PDT

  •  eh! why worry?

    Nine TRILLION and change? No problem! I'll bill your children!

    by itsmitch on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:28:13 AM PDT

    •  Debt limit

      Didn't I hear that the Senate was voting on raising the debt limit to $10 TRILLION this week?

      That can mean only one thing--the average yearly increase in the debt of about $500 BILLION is not enough for the upcoming slam of war costs, recession, and another year+ of GOP economic "boom".  In fact, the only boom I forsee happening is the one where the economic elevator slams into the basement w/o any brakes.

      by DrSpalding on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:29:51 AM PDT

    •  Why worry! Waxman is investigating Bill Clinton!

      Bush-Cheney may have bankrupted the USA, but don't worry. Henry Waxman is investigating Bill Clinton!

      Isn't that why we elected the Democrats in 2006? We wanted them to investigate Bill Clinton!

      We didn't really want them to stop the war or impeach Bush-Cheney. We wanted them to investigate Bill Clinton!

      An investigation of Bill Clinton will also pay for the war! Don't take my word for it, ask Congressman Henry Waxman!!

      Suggested question:

      What the fuck are you doing, you moron from Hell?!

      by Jacob Freeze on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:05:26 AM PDT

      •  That's why they can't start impeachment hearings

        Because they wouldn't be able to get the important work of Congress done, like investigating someone who's been out of office for 7 years while ignoring the person currently actively breaking laws, shredding the constitution, and thumbing his nose at us every day.

        by mataliandy on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:18:19 PM PDT

      •  We are living in bizarro world!

        I read about this the other day with half an eye (didn't read it in-depth). For Waxman to even consider this idiocy is beyond the pale. Have they ALL been taking hits of amyl nitrate to make them this stupid? "W.T.F.?" is becoming my mantra lately, I have nothing else left to explain this crap.

        by Logical One on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:46:26 PM PDT

  •  From Day One!

    Who DIDN'T see it coming!  Hadn't Reagan done enough by simply tripling it in his administration?  204 years to build up 845 billion in debt, 8 years to triple it.  No wonder none of the candidates are jumping up and down screaming about it.

    The collective wealth of an entire generation, lost forever to utter stupidity of those in power and complacent fools.  At least during WWII there were war bonds (down to $0.10 denomination stamps) which ordinary people bought, held, and spent the interest gained here at home. Today, foreigners are holding the debt and interest sure as hell isn't going to be spent here other than on lear jets, maga-yachts, and ivy league educations.

    by JohnnySacks on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:28:35 AM PDT

    •  There's something like $40 trillion

      Of wealth in the US.  Most of it is held by -- the wealthy.  A few years of progressive taxation can fix that.

      We had a higher debt/GDP ratio after WWII (125% of GDP) and upper income tax rates in the 70's and 90's.  That problem got fixed pretty quickly.  It can be fixed again.  The wealthy just need to bend over and take it.  And they will.  We severely outnumber them.

      by slippytoad on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:55:23 AM PDT

      •  Betrayed by that Majority

        I feel totally betrayed by the majority.  In our obsession with tax reductions which mostly benefit the wealthy and scare tactics used to sustain the military spending tax dollar black hole we (the majority) have allowed our elected officials, Dems and Reps alike, to perpetrate this financial obscenity.

        The Reagan legacy destroyed social programs and fostered huge military buildups which provided sweet higher paying jobs and even sweeter investment portfolios for many people.  I bought a car (now long gone) from a job making General Electric engine parts for the useless B1 bomber Reagan resurrected after Carter did the right thing by canceling.  Unfortunately, in the long term, the end products produced provided zero long term social benefits.  The mental health patients he tossed out into the street are still there living under cardboard and blankets.  Had the money been spent providing social services and producing products such as MRI machines and high speed rail infrastructure, we all would all still be reaping the benefits.

        by JohnnySacks on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:18:13 AM PDT

      •  Total US Household Net Worth

        is $56 trillion.

        The wealthy don't have to bend over and take it as you say.

        Capital is much more mobile today than it was in 1945. There are also a lot more places to invest it. With capital tax rates lower in Europe and much of the rest of the world than it is here in the US, a rise in tax rates on the rich will just result in them moving more of their capital off-shore.

        by daisycolorado on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:36:48 PM PDT

        •  Good. They can get the fuck out

          They are contributing exactly DICK to our economy right now.  Show me where I'm wrong about that!

          And they can't take their real estate with them, frankly.

          by slippytoad on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:54:11 PM PDT

          •  Awfully hard to have capitalism

            without capitalists.

            No they can't take their real estate, but then that is going to be an asset that is declining in value so selling it now may not be that much of a hardship.

            If you want to know what they exactly do for the economy, try visiting an economy where there aren't any capitalists, like Cuba, or NKorea. Or study what a model of efficiecny and liberty East Europe and the old Soviet Union were before the wall fell.

            by daisycolorado on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:01:35 PM PDT

            •  That's not what I'm saying

              It's very easy to have capitalism without the ultra-wealthy.  They are not contributing to this economy.

              They are sucking their money out and taking it to wherever it is they're taking it.  Their role as vacuum-masters can easily be replaced.  Anybody could do what they're doing.

              What I'm saying is aside from their real-estate, they are not capable of taking anything with them that our economy currently is USING.  Their wealth is locked away from those of us who work.  Their investments are tucked away in some distant bank that doesn't trickle down to us.  Their possessions are of no use to anyone but themselves, and probably of far less value than they imagine.  The next lower level of wealthy could easily rise to replace them and we would never even notice.

              by slippytoad on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:24:45 PM PDT

  •  Thsiis what you get when you have a President

    that has never had to balance a check book. Money grows on trees, don't you know?

    Thank you bonddad, I always appreciate your writings on the current market and this diary is no exception.   :)

    by Peperpatch on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:15:44 AM PDT

  •  Nonsense

    the budget deficits coming from the war are small potatoes compared to the deficits that will be coming from Social Security and Medicare if they are left unreformed.

    The burden you are leaving to your children has little to do with Iraq, bad as it is, and everything to do with funding your retirement and future health care.

    by daisycolorado on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:31:15 PM PDT

    •  Oh no you don't!

      The fact remains that had this country not been LIED into an unnecessary war, the money being shipped down the rathole to fund it would have been used for other things---like making sure that Social Security was not robbed and Medicare improved instead of that Medicare Part B atrocity passed and that is costing elderly dearly while the drug companies and Medicare Supplement Plans make out like bandits.  Don't you DARE blame programs like Social Security and Medicare for the current budget mess this country in.  And furthermore, don't try to start a generation war here by blaming the older for the supposed debt they're leaving to the younger of this country!  If we didn't have a warmonger for a president but one who actually gave a damn about the people of this country, any issues surrounding social security and medicare and education and infrastructure would have been dealt with.

      by 3goldens on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:23:00 PM PDT

      •  I am not blaming SS and Medicare

        for the current budget mess largely because there is not a budget mess currently.

        The current US deficit will be at most $200 billion this year. In a $14 trillion economy that is about 1.4% of GDP, less than half the 3% average of the past 30 years.

        The total debt as a share of GDP in 2006 was 64% about half what it was in 1946 and given the small increase in 2007, likely to decline as a share of GDP this year.

        Defense spending today, even with this war is about 4% of GDP, it was 10% at the peak of Vietnam, 15% at the Korean War peak and 50% at the peak of WWII. Defense spending is not the problem.  We could cut defense spending to zero and we would still have a problem.

        The debt problem is in the future and it is very real.  The problem is we will be paying medicare and social security benefits to millionaires and taking the tax dollars from mimimum wage workers.

        When SS was first passed in 1938, the life expectency of men was 65. Today its 78. There are simple and fair solutions to this debt problem. Push out the date when one can start drawing on SS and make the payments need based.

        by daisycolorado on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:53:10 PM PDT

        •  Debt problem is NOT in the future

          You have a president funding a multi-billion dollar war OFF THE BOOKS!  That is not a CURRENT debt problem?!  What world do you live in?!  Also, who are you pointing the finger at when you say "we will be paying medicare and social security benefits to millionaires and taking the tax dollars from minimum wage workers"?  Are you talking about people like my husband who is retired and on both social security and medicare?  Our NET income after taxes is approximately $38,000 a YEAR.  Even with your ability to screw with numbers, that doesn't make us MILLIONAIRES by ANY stretch of the imagination.  And as far as pushing out the date when one can start drawing SS---that's already in place thanks to people like you and Mister Greenspan.  Let those mllionaires you seem so familiar with start paying into SS instead of having the salary cut-off---oh, and while you're at it, tell people like Dick Cheney, the Bushes and their ilk, since they are ALL milionaires to GIVE UP their SS and Medicare!  They hardly need it.  And the payments already ARE need-based---they're tagged to one's earnings and if THAT isn't need-based, I don't know what is.  

          by 3goldens on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:07:34 PM PDT

          •  Daisy Colorado

            Al's Huckleberry Crisp:

            Berry Mix:
            1 quart wild huckleberries
            1/4 to 1/3 cup white sugar
            1 TBSP water
            1-2 tsp orange or lime zest

            Topping Mix:
            1 cup quick oats (rolled oats work fine too)
            1/2 cup white flour + 1/2 cup whole wheat flour, or any proportion you like to equal one cup

            1/2 cup brown sugar
            1/4-1/2 tsp salt
            8 TBSP butter (1 stick)  
            1/4 - 1/2 tsp Vanilla (optional)

            Mix berry filling together, put in pan
            Mix flour, oats and sugar thoroughly, then cut in butter.
            Cover berries evenly with the topping, bake at 350-375 for 35 minutes.

            Can be served warm or cold with ice cream or yogurt.  For a quick shortcut you can use grainola for a topping.  You can substitue margarine for butter but it won't taste the same.

            by playon on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:14:44 PM PDT

            •  Many thanks

              for saving my sanity.  I was just beginning to think I've been responding to a troll!  And many thanks as well for the recipe---it looks luscious! Could I use blackberries instead?  

              by 3goldens on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:19:09 PM PDT

              •  Daisy's figures are correct,

                as is the assertion that currently and I emphasize that, there is no debt problem.

                We emerged from WW2 victorious with a tremendous surplus of wealth and the world's only surviving manufacturing base.  I believe that for the decade thereafter the US accounted for almost half of the entire world's GDP.  Interest rates remained low except for one very brief, very steep spike in ~1947. Needless to say, it was easy to pay down the National Debt that had been incurred by the war.

                Our situation today is quite different.  I will be exploring the similarities and differences in Parts II and III of my diary series, "Bankruptcy 2015."

                Cheers.

                by New Deal democrat on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:45:04 PM PDT

            •  Forgot One Key Ingredient

              Doesn't this recipe call for several cups of Kewl-Aid boiled down to a thick concentrate?

              by PrahaPartizan on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:56:24 AM PDT

            •  How Sad

              when faced with hard facts about the reality of a situation you put your fingers in your ears and yell 'I can't hear you' So much for being part of a reality based community.

              by daisycolorado on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:38:37 AM PDT

          •  I realize these seem like large numbers

            but taken in context, the budget deficit is smaller today than it has been in the not so recent past. That is a hard fact. Defense spending as large and misdirected as it may be, is still smaller today as a share of the economy than it has been in the past.

            The fact of the matter, your own personal case aside, we do pay social security and medicare benefits to millionaires.

            Social Security payments are not need based, they are based on how much you earned, the more you earned the more you get in benefits.

            Medicaid is needs based but Medicare is not, rich and poor receive its benefits.

            The Greenspan commission pushed back the date for full SS benefits by 18 months, it needs to be pushed by a lot more.

            by daisycolorado on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:37:41 AM PDT

            •  How much more?

              The average lifespan of US citizens is 77.9 years.

              If you think that a person not having to work the last 12.9 years of their lives is unreasonable, what would be reasonable? How far would you push back the retirement age? 2 years? 5 years? Maybe 10 years?

              What do you think is a reasonable amount of time for a person to be able to collect from a program that they have paid into their entire working lives?

              by MichiganGirl on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 09:35:18 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          Sorry, but the budget deficit for this year will be well in excess of $400 billion - it's only the figure you cite if you forget to add on things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

          The rather brutal reality is that, in spite of a non-recessionary economy, the US government is bleeding cash at about $40-50 billion per month - and has been doing so consistently since the Bush administration's first budget. By the end of the Bush administration budget cycle, the federal deficit will have grown from about $6 trillion to over $10 trillion in 8 years - that's a 66% increase, which far outstrips broader US economic growth.

          The debt ceiling - which was raised in March of this year - has been breached, yet again. What do you think happens if the US economy hits a patch of sub-2% growth, or worse, goes into recession for a year?

          You can't blame SS payments for this - as there are still surpluses being generated, which the government is borrowing to finance discretionary spending.

          by londanium on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:54:42 AM PDT

          •  here is the data

            on the deficit

            From the US Treasury

            http://www.fms.treas.gov/...

            The deficit this year will come in under $200 billion, down from last years $206, which was down from the year before.

            Deficits shrink when the economy grows, that was just as true for Clinton as it is today.

            The US growth rate has been running at about 2% for the past 18 months, and still the deficit has shrunk. An actual recession, which is certainly a possibility would produce a higher deficit.

            I don't blame SS payments for the current problem, because I have been arguing that there is not a problem CURRENTLY. The problem is in the future because it is in the future that we are going to see explosive growth in SS and Medicare payments.

            If there is such a debt crisis then why are long term US Treasury bond rates at 4.5%, lower than they were a year ago and much lower than they were in 2000 at the peak of the Clinton surpluses?

            by daisycolorado on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:45:10 AM PDT

    •  Baby boomers paid MORE into SS so it would

      Be solvent when they retired. That extra paid in has been stolen for tax cuts to the wealthy and the occupation. That extra was paid in by the workers!

      What part of the problem was solved until the Repubs got in and stole it don't you get?

      What do you think Gore was talking about when he said "lockbox?"

      by splashy on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:21:34 PM PDT

      •  The Social Security

        lockbox is an accounting myth. Its no more real than the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. Unless the excess was invested in real wealth like other pension systems, it was a fantasy, nothing more.

        The excess has not been stolen, you can not steal something that does not exist. The Bush tax cuts pale by comparison to the imbedded increases in SS and Medicare spending to come.  

        Even with the Boomers paying in more, the return they are promised to get from SS will be dramatically more than they would from similar private pension contributions. All of which makes SS a welfare benefit that will be paid by the some of the poorest segments of society to some of the richest.

        by daisycolorado on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:29:19 PM PDT

        •  I assure you...

          ...the social security trust fund is no myth or figment of our imagination.  It was very real until (and republicans and democrats share blame in this) they started buying treasury bonds with that trust fund and then decided that THOSE bonds didn't HAVE to be paid back.

          That last part is where we all got screwed.

          by DawnG on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:38:51 PM PDT

          •  A Little More Complicated

            "...they started buying treasury bonds with that trust fund and then decided that THOSE bonds didn't HAVE to be paid back."

            What our good overlord daisycolorado wants us to forget is that the commission he worked on forced the SocSec to buy treasuries and ONLY treasuries.  At the time (sorry, daisy, I am that old) the debate had included the possibility of the SocSec actually buying stock in the market with the surplus.  That got swiftly nixed by the conservatives because, heaven forfend, the people might actually ultimate have a voice in the boardrooms.  So, the only compromise daisy and similar ilk were able to negotiate was treasuries.

            The bottom line is that folks like daisycolorado who feel we should truckle and tug at our forelocks when they speak don't want to pay taxes - period.  That their tax rates have been lower for the last twenty years courtesy of the SocSec deal brewed up in the 1980s means nothing.  They just want to walk away from the debt and say that it never existed.  It would be the slickest, most brazen theft in the history of the world, even better than the inflation Bernanke's going to engineer in order to pay for Greenspan's real estate bubble.  At least Bernanke's theft is partially hidden.  The conservative's push to just disown the SocSec trust fund is just blatant.  

            by PrahaPartizan on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:50:07 AM PDT

          •  The trust fund

            is similar to putting your child's college fund in one pocket and then borrowing that money to buy a new car, putting IOUs in the place of the funds. Your IOUs are good of course, but they are not the same as the real money.

            And as you point out, the Treasury IOUs don't have to be paid back.  What do you call debt that doesn't have to be repaid. I call it a myth.

            by daisycolorado on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:47:54 AM PDT

    •  Billions of dollars ripped off by

      cost-plus, no-bid contracts.  People tossing bricks of 100,000 bills around like footballs.  No reciept required.  Sailboat fuel.  Missing money, missing weapons, missing fuel, missing equipment.  All poured and continuing to pour into a bloody chasm with no end in sight.  Arms, legs, eyes, minds . . .  And Daisy thinks we should privatize Social Security.  

      So its okay with you, Daisy, that we are flushing money down the toilet in Iraq, as long as that money isn't going to help my Grandmother have a peaceful retirement after working her ass off her whole life?

      Its okay for Custer Battles, Halliburton and the rest to rip off the treasury, but not to have money to pay for my mom's health care after working her ass off her whole life?

      by Reepicheep on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:44:54 PM PDT

      •  Where did I say we should privatize

        SS?

        Reform it yes, push back retirement dates, by all means.  Make it means tested, please do so.

        You could zero out defense spending for the next decade and you would still have an entitlements problem. The defense contractors rip-offs are small potatoes compared to the the $40 trillion in unfunded SS and Medicare promises.

        by daisycolorado on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:50:55 AM PDT

  •  $30,054.29 per person (300,000,000 people in US)

    That's quite the haul for the war profiteers.

    Someone needs to put together a pool on how much each of us will owe at the end of the debacle.  

    It would also be interesting to see how much each of us pays directly to Halliburton, and from there, based on the value of his "delayed compensation" (aka shares of stock) we pay directly to Dick Cheney. Ditto for Carlyle Group and Poppy Bush.

    by mataliandy on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:58:19 PM PDT

  •  These past 6 years, 8 months seem like a ........

    .......horrible nightmare that one wishes would end.  Everything that that sociopathic and sadistic screw-up in the White House and his evil partner in crime, Cheney, have done since they stole the White House in the year 2000 has been a disaster.

    The next administration will have a superhuman task at trying to get our once respected country back on track. There is not one aspect of our society that has not been seriously damaged be the hubris, corruption and incompetency of the current neocon regime.

    We must all hope that we will never again allow ourself to slip into this dire situation.  There MUST be thorough vetting of any candidates for the two highest public offices in our country in regard to such basic qualifications such as moral character, intelligence and judgemental skills as well as proven leadership skills.

    by calibpatriot on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:45:04 PM PDT

•  And here I thought the war would "pay for itself"

  wasn't that phrase sandwiched in there between being greeted with roses and candy (like some bizarre first date) and "weapons of mass destruction"?

  I wanna know: are these folks delusional, deceiptful or just plain incompetent.

  by grannyhelen on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:06:11 AM PDT

  •  Delusional, deceiptful, AND incompetent.