Re: Here's an Interesting Question: Has Bush's Wars Cost More Than WWII?

From: sinister (sinister_at_nospam.invalid)
Date: 07/31/04 

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 20:33:53 GMT

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:3r5ng055od948ca4ohrkbgb86htagt3mgs@4ax.com...
> On 31 Jul 2004 03:19:53 -0700, Melchizedek@USA.com (Psalm 110) wrote:
>
>
>http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10298772%255E1702
,00.html
> >
> >Here's an Interesting Question: Has Bush's Wars Cost More Than WWII?
> >
> >The news is reporting the highest deficit in USA history,
> >$445,000,000,000.00. If it is the HIGHEST in USA history, than it
> >would be higher than 4 years of WWII. If the deficit was higher after
> >WWII than this couldn't be the HIGHEST.
>
> Well, that number you are pointing to is just the budget deficit.
> In absolute numbers, it is indeed the highest in USA history. Relative
> to GDP, otoh, it is nothing to write home about, a petty few per cent
> of it. I mean, you only have to go back to the 1980's to find budget
> deficits as percentage of GDP, double of that.

Picture changes when you don't consider the Social Security surplus as part
of the balance; then Bush's deficits are comparable to the 1980s, in fact
IIRC beats most of them.

> And during WWII US budget deficits ran at 20+ per cent of the GDP.

Right, this comparison that Psalm 110 is making is stupid.

>
> >The ONLY way this could be the HIGHEST EVER in the entire history of
> >the USA is if these pissant wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost
> >significantly more that WWII.
>
> Oh, that's a non sequitur. There are dozens of ways to run up a
> budget deficit. If it just fits the pattern, that the government lays
> out more money than it gets in, it'll do.

Especially if Republicans are in control of the executive...

>
> >WWII had the buildup of thousands of ships and many tens of thousands
> >of fighte and bomber planes, and the costs of outfitting 3,000,000 men
> >in uniform. It is hard to imagine that all that did not cost what
> >George W. Bush has spent since 9/11, only 36 months ago.
>
> Right, that's hard to imagine. I'd say, it is not credible. If it were
> true, noone would believe it.
>
> >Bush hasn't spent money on anything else: he cut environment, he cut
> >schools, he cut veterans benefits from the guys who fought WWII.
>
> >Can it be that Bush really has outspent WWII?
>
> It is just not plausible, that he has.
>

Relevant Pages