How much debt did GWB add? the truth

[rdean]

then again heres CBS


September 29, 2008 12:20 PM

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

By
Mark Knoller

It's the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch.


more at-

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt - Couric & Co. - CBS News

Now, even f they did not add iraq or afghan. which they do not say or not,

they came to; approx. 850 Billion.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf


so lets call it 5.5 and not quibble.

No, let's quibble.

Those numbers were for THAT moment in time.

Add in the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost of rebuilding our military, the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of wounded and maimed Americans, the added cost of the children of those soldiers who died and other stuff I haven't even thought about.

When you destroy two countries, you are stuck with rebuilding. Obama is only trying to finish what Bush and the Republicans started.

All of these costs started under Bush, but have become part of Obama's budget. All being blamed on Obama, but started under Bush and the Republicans. That's the disingenuous nature of politics. Obama can't just "walk away" from what the Republican started. They may be capable of that, but I don't think he is.

So who knows how much Bush and the Republicans added to the debt. But it's a heck of a lot more than the measly 5 trillion reported here.

 

[JRK]

Hey guys, you do know Barack Obama is in charge now. He's in charge. He's in charge. You must one day FINALLY accept the fact that Barack Obama is in charge. It's HIS watch now. Not Bush's.

But let not the GOP brand forget to keep on blaming Clinton.........and Carter.....but Bush? Free pass!

When have you ever read a thread from me blaming anyone?
I just wished this country would get told the truth every once in a while

 

[JRK]

then again heres CBS


September 29, 2008 12:20 PM

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

By
Mark Knoller

It's the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch.


more at-

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt - Couric & Co. - CBS News

Now, even f they did not add iraq or afghan. which they do not say or not,

they came to; approx. 850 Billion.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf


so lets call it 5.5 and not quibble.

No, let's quibble.

Those numbers were for THAT moment in time.

Add in the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost of rebuilding our military, the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of wounded and maimed Americans, the added cost of the children of those soldiers who died and other stuff I haven't even thought about.

When you destroy two countries, you are stuck with rebuilding. Obama is only trying to finish what Bush and the Republicans started.

All of these costs started under Bush, but have become part of Obama's budget. All being blamed on Obama, but started under Bush and the Republicans. That's the disingenuous nature of politics. Obama can't just "walk away" from what the Republican started. They may be capable of that, but I don't think he is.

So who knows how much Bush and the Republicans added to the debt. But it's a heck of a lot more than the measly 5 trillion reported here.

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

 

[JRK]

Don't forget that the 2009 deficit was Bush's. From the Cato Institute.
Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit | Cato @ Liberty

That is modern day conservatism for you. They expand and bloat the government and then they bitch about it when they lose power and blame other people for the hole that they dug. The party of personal and fiscal responsibility shirk both.

So you have part of the stimulus
part of tarp
you have close to a super majority in both the houses
and BHO signs the budget into law march of 2009

sure its Bushes
The diff with the lib and I?
Part of it is GWB. How much is too debate
50% seems to be the agreement with us rational people

I look at this chart, and Obama's most rosey projections are still worse than Bush's worst year (2008).

Obama would consider it "progress" if we peel the the deficit back to 600 billion a year.

Here's the real problem. It's not that we aren't taxing the rich enough. Even if you completely repealed the Bush Tax cuts, you'd still have huge deficits. The rich will always find ways to protect and hide their money, which is why the effective tax rate is only about 20% of GDP. You raise taxes on the rich, they find less reasons to employ working folks.

The real problem is that the overall base of taxpayers have been shrinking. With the good manufacturing jobs going away, essentially, you have less revenues coming in. When you are running a trade deficit of 500 Billion a year, as we have been since the mid-90's, that is trillions that is vanishing from the macro-economy. That's why we have huge deficits.

We have been in trade deficit since 1976, and since then, the national debt has gone from a meager 600 Billion for all two hundred years of our history to about 14 TRILLION today.

Both parties are to blame because both of them drink down the "Free Trade" Koolaid that makes an American worker compete with someone in a third world rathole like it's a fair fight.

At least your thread is civil
And I do agree with most of it
Both parties have made there mistakes, but the events that have took place sense Obama stepped in have had intent, purpose, and he has done nothing to really help restore the labor market

the one thing that would stop some of this debt would have been jobs
In BHO defense his asset pool has took a big hit

 

[edthecynic]

then again heres CBS


September 29, 2008 12:20 PM

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

By
Mark Knoller

It's the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch.


more at-

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt - Couric & Co. - CBS News

Now, even f they did not add iraq or afghan. which they do not say or not,

they came to; approx. 850 Billion.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf


so lets call it 5.5 and not quibble.

No, let's quibble.

Those numbers were for THAT moment in time.

Add in the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost of rebuilding our military, the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of wounded and maimed Americans, the added cost of the children of those soldiers who died and other stuff I haven't even thought about.

When you destroy two countries, you are stuck with rebuilding. Obama is only trying to finish what Bush and the Republicans started.

All of these costs started under Bush, but have become part of Obama's budget. All being blamed on Obama, but started under Bush and the Republicans. That's the disingenuous nature of politics. Obama can't just "walk away" from what the Republican started. They may be capable of that, but I don't think he is.

So who knows how much Bush and the Republicans added to the debt. But it's a heck of a lot more than the measly 5 trillion reported here.

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

 

[Mr Natural]

Multiply $300 times 100,000,000 or so and there's a start to how much debt GWB added.

 

[JRK]

No, let's quibble.

Those numbers were for THAT moment in time.

Add in the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost of rebuilding our military, the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of wounded and maimed Americans, the added cost of the children of those soldiers who died and other stuff I haven't even thought about.

When you destroy two countries, you are stuck with rebuilding. Obama is only trying to finish what Bush and the Republicans started.

All of these costs started under Bush, but have become part of Obama's budget. All being blamed on Obama, but started under Bush and the Republicans. That's the disingenuous nature of politics. Obama can't just "walk away" from what the Republican started. They may be capable of that, but I don't think he is.

So who knows how much Bush and the Republicans added to the debt. But it's a heck of a lot more than the measly 5 trillion reported here.

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Well you have got to a point in which the troops are the reason we are in debt
How much lower will you go bud?
Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

facts mean little
why is it while the dems had close to super majority and the whit house they did not add a tax to offset these cost?

When will you use actual information and not that, that is at best a guess?

Do you have any accurate information as to the real cost of caring for our wounded?

And is there any time you will admit that 21 out of 50 dem senators in 2002 voted to support the war in Iraq?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

 

[Full-Auto]

Multiply $300 times 100,000,000 or so and there's a start to how much debt GWB added.

LOL I guess you do not recall Nancy's famous speech when she became speaker.


The end of deficit spending. Then went on to add 5 trillion.

 

[Mustang]

According to wiki Dubya added $6.1-Trillion

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those Reagan and Bush 43 year numbers are really huge, aren't they?

 

[JRK]

No, let's quibble.

Those numbers were for THAT moment in time.

Add in the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost of rebuilding our military, the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of wounded and maimed Americans, the added cost of the children of those soldiers who died and other stuff I haven't even thought about.

When you destroy two countries, you are stuck with rebuilding. Obama is only trying to finish what Bush and the Republicans started.

All of these costs started under Bush, but have become part of Obama's budget. All being blamed on Obama, but started under Bush and the Republicans. That's the disingenuous nature of politics. Obama can't just "walk away" from what the Republican started. They may be capable of that, but I don't think he is.

So who knows how much Bush and the Republicans added to the debt. But it's a heck of a lot more than the measly 5 trillion reported here.

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

One other question
when the UE rate was around 5% until Obama took office, when did the economy suffer?
2009?
I mean thru 9-11 and Clintons recession it never got much above 6
so when did the economy suffer?

 

[edthecynic]

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

One other question
when the UE rate was around 5% until Obama took office, when did the economy suffer?
2009?
I mean thru 9-11 and Clintons recession it never got much above 6
so when did the economy suffer?

You should know by now that when your MessiahRushie told you the UE rate was 5% when Obama took over he was LYING!!!

The UE was over 7% and skyrocketing, up from the 3.9% Clinton passed to Bush, when Obama came into office and over 8% before he passed his first bill.

 

[JRK]

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

One other question
when the UE rate was around 5% until Obama took office, when did the economy suffer?
2009?
I mean thru 9-11 and Clintons recession it never got much above 6
so when did the economy suffer?

You should know by now that when your MessiahRushie told you the UE rate was 5% when Obama took over he was LYING!!!

The UE was over 7% and skyrocketing, up from the 3.9% Clinton passed to Bush, when Obama came into office and over 8% before he passed his first bill.

So when did the Iraq war cost the economy
when UE got in the 4s

Yes UE went up as Obama took office
and its not got much better
the war in Iraq is over young man
and as far as the 3.9 goes
I am to tired to look it up

we had a recession in 3/01 and 9-11 6 months later

 

[edthecynic]

One other question
when the UE rate was around 5% until Obama took office, when did the economy suffer?
2009?
I mean thru 9-11 and Clintons recession it never got much above 6
so when did the economy suffer?

You should know by now that when your MessiahRushie told you the UE rate was 5% when Obama took over he was LYING!!!

The UE was over 7% and skyrocketing, up from the 3.9% Clinton passed to Bush, when Obama came into office and over 8% before he passed his first bill.

So when did the Iraq war cost the economy
when UE got in the 4s

Yes UE went up as Obama took office
and its not got much better
the war in Iraq is over young man
and as far as the 3.9 goes
I am to tired to look it up

we had a recession in 3/01 and 9-11 6 months later

Too lazy would be more honest.
The UE rate for all of 2000 was 3.97%

The United States Unemployment Rate
Clinton
2000-01 4.00
2000-02 4.10
2000-03 4.00
2000-04 3.80
2000-05 4.00
2000-06 4.00
2000-07 4.00
2000-08 4.10
2000-09 3.90
2000-10 3.90
2000-11 3.90
2000-12 3.90

 

[Trajan]

No, let's quibble.

Those numbers were for THAT moment in time.

Add in the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost of rebuilding our military, the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of wounded and maimed Americans, the added cost of the children of those soldiers who died and other stuff I haven't even thought about.

When you destroy two countries, you are stuck with rebuilding. Obama is only trying to finish what Bush and the Republicans started.

All of these costs started under Bush, but have become part of Obama's budget. All being blamed on Obama, but started under Bush and the Republicans. That's the disingenuous nature of politics. Obama can't just "walk away" from what the Republican started. They may be capable of that, but I don't think he is.

So who knows how much Bush and the Republicans added to the debt. But it's a heck of a lot more than the measly 5 trillion reported here.

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

would coulda maybe might...please. if I say the cbo says obama care will cots us trillions all you have to say is its "projections"...please...



here from the congressional research office, the cost right now and into 2012 for iraq and afghan.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

have at it;

1.283 Trillion thru 2011

 

[rdean]

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Well you have got to a point in which the troops are the reason we are in debt
How much lower will you go bud?
Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

facts mean little
why is it while the dems had close to super majority and the whit house they did not add a tax to offset these cost?

When will you use actual information and not that, that is at best a guess?

Do you have any accurate information as to the real cost of caring for our wounded?

And is there any time you will admit that 21 out of 50 dem senators in 2002 voted to support the war in Iraq?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

You are an idiot. Those troops never would have been maimed if Republicans and Bush hadn't sent them to Iraq with fucking old and rusty equipment. What kind of monsters do that to our American soldiers? Republicans care for our troops EXACTLY the same amount they care for the US Middle Class. EXACTLY THE SAME!!

 

[rdean]

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

would coulda maybe might...please. if I say the cbo says obama care will cots us trillions all you have to say is its "projections"...please...



here from the congressional research office, the cost right now and into 2012 for iraq and afghan.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

have at it;

1.283 Trillion thru 2011

By operation. That doesn't take into account all the other costs associated with that debacle.

 

[uscitizen]

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Well you have got to a point in which the troops are the reason we are in debt
How much lower will you go bud?
Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

facts mean little
why is it while the dems had close to super majority and the whit house they did not add a tax to offset these cost?

When will you use actual information and not that, that is at best a guess?

Do you have any accurate information as to the real cost of caring for our wounded?

And is there any time you will admit that 21 out of 50 dem senators in 2002 voted to support the war in Iraq?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

And how many of the republicans voted for the war?

The administration also assured the congress that the war would last maybe 6 months and cost 40 billion.

 

[rdean]

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Well you have got to a point in which the troops are the reason we are in debt
How much lower will you go bud?
Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

facts mean little
why is it while the dems had close to super majority and the whit house they did not add a tax to offset these cost?

When will you use actual information and not that, that is at best a guess?

Do you have any accurate information as to the real cost of caring for our wounded?

And is there any time you will admit that 21 out of 50 dem senators in 2002 voted to support the war in Iraq?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

And how many of the republicans voted for the war?

The administration also assured the congress that the war would last maybe 6 months and cost 40 billion.

Not only that, using psychological warfare on the US Population. "You are with us or with the terrorists". Only monsters talk like that to force Americans to do something. Soulless, heartless, evil monsters.

 

[rdean]

To start with we are done in Iraq
And I dont recall anyone of us waking up one morning and just deciding we should go to war
You got an issue with the war(s), so be it
but there care is pennies and for you even to suggest the reason we are having a financial crises (debt) with the US govt because of the injuries sustained by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is sick

Blame?
The amount of money spent in these countries is out there for every one to see
let me add that Obama's failed stimulus cost more than we had spent in Iraq
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Examiner Staff Writer | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

At what point did the democratic party attempt to raise taxes to be used to offset the wars?
they have had both houses from 07-11 with the white house 09-11 and very close to a super majority

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

One other question
when the UE rate was around 5% until Obama took office, when did the economy suffer?
2009?
I mean thru 9-11 and Clintons recession it never got much above 6
so when did the economy suffer?

You do understand that a President's budget is for ONE YEAR. Oct 1 to Oct 1. Obama was sworn in on Jan 20th, but his budget didn't start on the first day he took office. Try to figure out why.

That means Obama had to live under the Bush budget until October 1st, when unemployment has risen to 10.1%.

See how that works? Please explain how that was "Obama's fault".

Bush's Budget Projects Deficits

It's posts like this that cause the right wingers to hate my guts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you keep posting the right-wing whack-job sources that have no credibility. The reason it is a "little-known" fact is because it is not a fact at all!

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
Sunday, September 5, 2010

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

One other question
when the UE rate was around 5% until Obama took office, when did the economy suffer?
2009?
I mean thru 9-11 and Clintons recession it never got much above 6
so when did the economy suffer?

You do understand that a President's budget is for ONE YEAR. Oct 1 to Oct 1. Obama was sworn in on Jan 20th, but his budget didn't start on the first day he took office. Try to figure out why.

That means Obama had to live under the Bush budget until October 1st, when unemployment has risen to 10.1%.

See how that works? Please explain how that was "Obama's fault".

Bush's Budget Projects Deficits

It's posts like this that cause the right wingers to hate my guts.

Obama lived under the Bush budget until Oct 1, 2009?
Didn't pass any of his own spending before Oct 1, 2009?