SS does not contribute one nickel to the debt. The wars contributed 6 trillion to the debt.

[grahamhgreen]

Social Security is on the table.

The wars are essentially off the table.

There is no logical process or 11th dimensional chess here.

The only way this makes sense is if you've sold out your core Democratic principals to the people who make money off of war, death, destruction, rendition and killing.

[Desertrose]

1. K&R

[KansDem]

2. That's because wars make certain people rich...

Social Security does not.

It's the American way.

[BeFree]

4. SS is base load

SS pays electric bills, water bills, food bills, gas bills and medical bills.

Take that away and the economy is dead meat.

Yep, every cut to SS ends up hurting our eCONomy.

If we cut the defense spending that goes off shore and kept the $$ here it would heal the economy.

[Blue Meany]

3. Makes perfect sense. SS is the largest owner of government debt...

Republicans don't want to pay it back.

[reformist2]

5. Bingo! It's all about the rich trying to shirk their obligations.

They owe Social Security $3 trillion and they know perfectly well what that means - big increases in the income tax.

[hfojvt]

6. $6 trillion?

You got a source for that, or is that a projection? I don't think the wars have cost anywhere near $6 trillion yet.

This website says $1.2 trillion. http://costofwar.com/en/

[grahamhgreen]

11. Link

"Two years ago, Joseph Stiglitz and I published The Three Trillion Dollar War in which we estimated that the budgetary and economic costs of the war would reach $3 trillion.

Taking new numbers into account, however, we now believe that our initial estimate was far too conservative—the cost of the wars will reach between $4 trillion and $6 trillion.

For example, we recently analyzed the medical and disability claim patterns for almost a million troops who have returned from the wars, and, based on this record, we've revised our estimate upward to between $600 billion and $900 billion—a broad specter, yes, but certainly also a significant upward tick from our earlier projection of $400 billion to $700 billion, based on historical patterns."


MORE: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/10/27/the-economic-crisis-and-the-hidden-cost-of-the-wars.html


Some of these are projected costs, but remember that social security currently has a 2.5 trillion surplus. It is expected to run a surplus for the next 25 years. So, if it is appropriate to talk about the projected costs of social security at this time (which are a separate pool of money from the debt), then it is even more appropriate to talk about the projected costs of the wars-for-profit in the Middle East (which are the same pool of money as the debt).

[hfojvt]

13. nice article

but I still do not think it is fair to say "contributED" when you are talking about the future, although as the snip mentions some of those future costs are pretty much unavoidable already.

[grahamhgreen]

15. You're right

I tired to change it after reading your post, but it it was too late to edit!

It would be better put "will contribute", or "are contributing".

Of course, the reason we need to raise the debt ceiling is for debts in the future, not the present.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. Answer: DC is being paid to NOT understand the obvious.

They want our SS, M&M. And they'll say any f'ing lie to get their crooked hands on it.

[mike_c]

8. exactly so....

And your explanation is the most logical one possible.

[William769]

9. It's all about appeasing the repukes.

Thats whats wrong with this President.

[bobthedrummer]

10. K&R n/t

[mmonk]

12. Yep.

Recommended.

[indepat]

14. Fighting unfunded perpetual wars now to be funded by evisceration of social security et al

makes us such a stronger, healthier, and safer nation. Yeah! :patriot: