Deficits With And Without The Iraq War

[boedicca]

As Obamanomics crashes and burns, the spinmeisters on the Left continue to try to blame the deficit and our economic wars on Bush, and more specifically, Bush's War in Iraq.

As data from the CBO demonstrates, they are pushing misinformation. Here's the real G2:

The Iraq War ends this month. The last combat brigade left August 19. Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began in 2003, will end August 31. September 1 marks the beginning of Operation New Dawn. Now that it's over, what did the Iraq War cost?

Here are examples of what some people had been saying about Iraq War costs.

"It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq..."
- James Carville, the Financial Times.

"The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home."
- Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Washington Post.

"First, the facts. Nearly the entire deficit for this year and those projected into the near and medium terms are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession. The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars..."
- Christopher Hayes, The Nation.

The correct answer to my question, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is $709 billion. The Iraq War cost $709 billion. Why Carville, Bilmes, and Nobel-winning economist Stiglitz thought the answer was $3 trillion is anybody's guess. But what's a 323% error among friends?

American Thinker: Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not

 

[8537]

It wasn't just the wars that Bush fucked us with. it was also a 1.2T monstrosity known as pharmasubsi...err...I mean Medicare Part D.

And a vast expansion of farm subsidies.

And a tax cut that was supposed to refund the "surplus" that disappeared right after he took office.

....

 

[johnrocks]

Wars, Medicare Part D , taxcuts with spending increases, a lot of things were going on to add to the deficit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Its obvious our aircraft carriers that cost $7 trillion, that has to be it

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The correct answer to my question, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is $709 billion. The Iraq War cost $709 billion. Why Carville, Bilmes, and Nobel-winning economist Stiglitz thought the answer was $3 trillion is anybody's guess. But what's a 323% error among friends?

Where are you getting this number??? When I added it up from the chart, Bush spent @1.85 trillion and Obama is spending 1.4 trillion = roughly 3.25 trillion total (as of 2009). The 1.4 trillion, which I believe also includes the war in Afghanistan. The Iraq war definitely broke us and should never have happened in the first place. Period. Imagine where we'd be without that nightmare money suck of a fiasco. It is exactly what it was intended to be... a vehicle to put money in the pockets of select multinationals ... taxpayer's money, that is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wars, Medicare Part D , taxcuts with spending increases, a lot of things were going on to add to the deficit.

But none of them nearly as much as the insane spending binge by Obama&Co.
Review & Outlook: $4.4 Trillion - WSJ.com

 

[johnrocks]

Wars, Medicare Part D , taxcuts with spending increases, a lot of things were going on to add to the deficit.

But none of them nearly as much as the insane spending binge by Obama&Co.
Review & Outlook: $4.4 Trillion - WSJ.com

Oh, I agree, Obama is definitely pushing down on the gas pedal harder. I'm pissed at both Parties, they both took our trust over the years and spat on it.

 

[8537]

Wars, Medicare Part D , taxcuts with spending increases, a lot of things were going on to add to the deficit.

But none of them nearly as much as the insane spending binge by Obama&Co.

Current deficits are far more impacted by a decline in tax revenues than an any increases in spending.

 

[boedicca]

The correct answer to my question, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is $709 billion. The Iraq War cost $709 billion. Why Carville, Bilmes, and Nobel-winning economist Stiglitz thought the answer was $3 trillion is anybody's guess. But what's a 323% error among friends?

Where are you getting this number??? When I added it up from the chart, Bush spent @1.85 trillion and Obama is spending 1.4 trillion = roughly 3.25 trillion total (as of 2009). The 1.4 trillion, which I believe also includes the war in Afghanistan. The Iraq war definitely broke us and should never have happened in the first place. Period. Imagine where we'd be without that nightmare money suck of a fiasco. It is exactly what it was intended to be... a vehicle to put money in the pockets of select multinationals ... taxpayer's money, that is.

The numbers are from the CBO. You can look them up yourself if you don't believe them.

 

[boedicca]

Wars, Medicare Part D , taxcuts with spending increases, a lot of things were going on to add to the deficit.

But none of them nearly as much as the insane spending binge by Obama&Co.

Current deficits are far more impacted by a decline in tax revenues than an any increases in spending.

Absolute Poppcock. The Federal Budget has increased from 30% ($800B) from 2007 to 2010, while tax revenue is down $100B.

 

[DiamondDave]

It wasn't just the wars that Bush fucked us with. it was also a 1.2T monstrosity known as pharmasubsi...err...I mean Medicare Part D.

And a vast expansion of farm subsidies.

And a tax cut that was supposed to refund the "surplus" that disappeared right after he took office.

....

1) Many conservatives were against Bush's spending policies
2) There was no motherfucking surplus... this myth has been debunked over and over and over again

 

[8537]

But none of them nearly as much as the insane spending binge by Obama&Co.

Current deficits are far more impacted by a decline in tax revenues than an any increases in spending.

Absolute Poppcock. The Federal Budget has increased from 30% ($800B) from 2007 to 2010, while tax revenue is down $100B.

Oh really now? Revenues fell from 21% of GDP in 2000...

to about 14% in 2009.

Meanwhile, Federal spending increased from about 20% in 2000 to 25% in 2009.

 

[8537]

1) Many conservatives were against Bush's spending policies

Well, that's convenient...now.

2) There was no motherfucking surplus... this myth has been debunked over and over and over again

In 1998 and 2001, unified budget was in surplus. (more unified revenues than unified expenses)

in 1999 and 2000, on-budget items were in surplus (more on-budget revenues than expenses, hence a decline in debt held by the public)

...motherfucking myths.

 

[DiamondDave]

1) Many conservatives were against Bush's spending policies

Well, that's convenient...now.

2) There was no motherfucking surplus... this myth has been debunked over and over and over again

In 1998 and 2001, unified budget was in surplus. (more unified revenues than unified expenses)

in 1999 and 2000, on-budget items were in surplus (more on-budget revenues than expenses, hence a decline in debt held by the public)

...motherfucking myths.

WRONG

You do not get to cherry pick and only look at the budget.. please refer to intergovernmental spending...

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

epic fail

There was NO surplus.. we have not had a surplus since 1957

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The numbers are from the CBO. You can look them up yourself if you don't believe them.

BS. Your number of 708 billion is exactly negated by the chart that coincides with the 3.3 trillion dollar number (as of the end of 2009)- add it up if you don't believe me. 709 billion was surpassed long ago under shrub's watch.

 

[Modbert]

1) Many conservatives were against Bush's spending policies
2) There was no motherfucking surplus... this myth has been debunked over and over and over again

Which is why they voted for Bush twice. D'oh.

 

[8537]

WRONG

LOL! You're quite a smart poster, Dave. These kinds of "I win!" statements are cute.

You do not get to cherry pick and only look at the budget.. please refer to intergovernmental spending...

in a discussion about budgets, you'll have to excuse me for focusing on budgets.

The UNIFIED Budget (which includes intergovernmental transfers) was in surplus for a four year period.

The on-budget items (which exclude both revenues and expenditures related to the various trusts) were in surplus for two years. The debt held by the public declined during those two years.

 

[Modbert]

There was NO surplus.. we have not had a surplus since 1957

And you know who was President in 1957? Ike.

Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisenhower believed that taxes could not be cut until the budget was balanced. "We cannot afford to reduce taxes, [and] reduce income," he said, "until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced." Eisenhower kept the national debt low and inflation near zero.[7]

 

[DiamondDave]

1) Many conservatives were against Bush's spending policies
2) There was no motherfucking surplus... this myth has been debunked over and over and over again

Which is why they voted for Bush twice. D'oh.

Yeah.. voting only comes from looking at 1 candidate... not all involved

Sometimes, a lesser of 2 evils scenario applies.. sometimes people make a scorecard and weigh candidates against it, and will vote for whomever gets the highest score EVEN if they do not agree with all stances and policies of the candidate they eventually vote for... and various other scenarios and circumstances

nice try though

 

[Modbert]

Yeah.. voting only comes from looking at 1 candidate... not all involved

Sometimes, a lesser of 2 evils scenario applies.. sometimes people make a scorecard and weigh candidates against it, and will vote for whomever gets the highest score EVEN if they do not agree with all stances and policies of the candidate they eventually vote for... and various other scenarios and circumstances

nice try though

Because we all know there were only two candidates running for office in 2000 and 2004. Plus, we all know that Bush was the only candidate running for the GOP nomination in 2000. Instead of making such excuses, own up to your vote.

Nice try though.