Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

daveman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2010
76,336
29,352
2,250
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Washington Examiner

Expect to hear a lot about how much the Iraq war cost in the days ahead from Democrats worried about voter wrath against their unprecedented spending excesses.
The meme is simple: The economy is in a shambles because of Bush's economic policies and his war in Iraq. As American Thinker's Randall Hoven points out, that's the message being peddled by lefties as diverse as former Clinton political strategist James Carville, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and The Nation's Washington editor, Christopher Hayes.
The key point in the mantra is an alleged $3 trillion cost for the war. Well, it was expensive to be sure, in both blood and treasure, but, as Hoven notes, the CBO puts the total cost at $709 billion. To put that figure in the proper context of overall spending since the war began in 2003, Hoven provides this handy CBO chart showing the portion of the annual deficit attributable to the conflict:

30b1w5s.gif


But there is much more to be said of this data and Hoven does an admirable job of summarizing the highlights of such an analysis:
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)
Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq.
 
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Washington Examiner

Expect to hear a lot about how much the Iraq war cost in the days ahead from Democrats worried about voter wrath against their unprecedented spending excesses.
The meme is simple: The economy is in a shambles because of Bush's economic policies and his war in Iraq. As American Thinker's Randall Hoven points out, that's the message being peddled by lefties as diverse as former Clinton political strategist James Carville, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and The Nation's Washington editor, Christopher Hayes.
The key point in the mantra is an alleged $3 trillion cost for the war. Well, it was expensive to be sure, in both blood and treasure, but, as Hoven notes, the CBO puts the total cost at $709 billion. To put that figure in the proper context of overall spending since the war began in 2003, Hoven provides this handy CBO chart showing the portion of the annual deficit attributable to the conflict:

30b1w5s.gif


But there is much more to be said of this data and Hoven does an admirable job of summarizing the highlights of such an analysis:
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)
Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq.

Your article was absolute crap. Comparing deficits of the period to evaluate the costs of the war and the stimulus is as foolish as tickle down cult ideology.

Stigletz, who both won a Nobel prize in econ and predicted the same credit crisis that "shocked" 95% of the US' economics PHD's, predicted the full costs of the Iraq war would be $3 trillion.

The stimulus was a merely a 4th that much.

As much as a vehemently opposed the bailouts and the stimulus I call BULL!

And just to give you some context: The last two dependents drawing retirement pensions from the US Civil war didn't die until 1998 and 1999. 133 years after that war ended.

So the long term, actual costs of war are far, far larger than the funds budgeted to execute the war itself.

Stigletz did include some dubious items like productivity loss from dead and injured soldiers.

So let's compromise and say the Iraq war only cost 3 times as much as the stimulus. Which I opposed and still do.

Google
 
Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war | Washington Examiner

Expect to hear a lot about how much the Iraq war cost in the days ahead from Democrats worried about voter wrath against their unprecedented spending excesses.
The meme is simple: The economy is in a shambles because of Bush's economic policies and his war in Iraq. As American Thinker's Randall Hoven points out, that's the message being peddled by lefties as diverse as former Clinton political strategist James Carville, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and The Nation's Washington editor, Christopher Hayes.
The key point in the mantra is an alleged $3 trillion cost for the war. Well, it was expensive to be sure, in both blood and treasure, but, as Hoven notes, the CBO puts the total cost at $709 billion. To put that figure in the proper context of overall spending since the war began in 2003, Hoven provides this handy CBO chart showing the portion of the annual deficit attributable to the conflict:

30b1w5s.gif


But there is much more to be said of this data and Hoven does an admirable job of summarizing the highlights of such an analysis:
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)
Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq.

What's the cost of five thousand American soldiers, sailors and marines lives, 20,000 who lost arms, legs, vision or tramatic brain injury? The cost to those who will suffer for a lifetime from the noise and horror of combat? The civilian population, the women and children liberated from life by the war of choice?
Oh, an $10 billion a month for nearly six years, not counting the medical costs for combat injuries lasting for decades; OH, and what about a $ one billion embassy (is it finished yet?).
 
What's the cost of five thousand American soldiers, sailors and marines lives, 20,000 who lost arms, legs, vision or tramatic brain injury? The cost to those who will suffer for a lifetime from the noise and horror of combat? The civilian population, the women and children liberated from life by the war of choice?

What's the cost of all of that,

during the time it's been OBOZO'S WAR???
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007
What's the cost of five thousand American soldiers, sailors and marines lives, 20,000 who lost arms, legs, vision or tramatic brain injury? The cost to those who will suffer for a lifetime from the noise and horror of combat? The civilian population, the women and children liberated from life by the war of choice?

What's the cost of all of that,

during the time it's been OBOZO'S WAR???

THAT is different. Just ask any Liberal.
 
What's the cost of five thousand American soldiers, sailors and marines lives, 20,000 who lost arms, legs, vision or tramatic brain injury? The cost to those who will suffer for a lifetime from the noise and horror of combat? The civilian population, the women and children liberated from life by the war of choice?

What's the cost of all of that,

during the time it's been OBOZO'S WAR???

THAT is different. Just ask any Liberal.

It has never been President Obama's war. One might expect a former soldier to understand removing 150,000 soldiers from a theatre of war takes planning. Simply because Bush&Co sent them in poorly equipped doesn't mean they can be removed without a plan.
btw, I'm not surprised you would respond favorably to an idiotgram.
 
What's the cost of all of that,

during the time it's been OBOZO'S WAR???

THAT is different. Just ask any Liberal.

It has never been President Obama's war. One might expect a former soldier to understand removing 150,000 soldiers from a theatre of war takes planning. Simply because Bush&Co sent them in poorly equipped doesn't mean they can be removed without a plan.
btw, I'm not surprised you would respond favorably to an idiotgram.
it has always been his war
just as it has been every Americans war
or are liberals now somehow exempt?
 
It has never been President Obama's war. One might expect a former soldier to understand removing 150,000 soldiers from a theatre of war takes planning. Simply because Bush&Co sent them in poorly equipped doesn't mean they can be removed without a plan.
btw, I'm not surprised you would respond favorably to an idiotgram.

Wow.

You're smarter than the man sitting in the oval office...

We were promised it would be OVER, ALL troops returning to their homes AS SOON AS HE GAINED THE POTUS.

EVERY SECOND after THAT?

It's been HIS WAR, pal.
 
Sure, little rabbity idiot, sure.

You people have a short memory, the rest of us do not.

Had our President pulled out all of our troops ASAP after January 20, 2009, you would have immediatly sounded the tocsins on how he 'lost' that war. Look how long you idiots blamed Truman for 'losing' China.
 
It has never been President Obama's war. One might expect a former soldier to understand removing 150,000 soldiers from a theatre of war takes planning. Simply because Bush&Co sent them in poorly equipped doesn't mean they can be removed without a plan.
btw, I'm not surprised you would respond favorably to an idiotgram.

Wow.

You're smarter than the man sitting in the oval office...

We were promised it would be OVER, ALL troops returning to their homes AS SOON AS HE GAINED THE POTUS.

EVERY SECOND after THAT?

It's been HIS WAR, pal.

Actually, Obama's campaign started out with that policy but it changed early on in the primaries.
 
It has never been President Obama's war. One might expect a former soldier to understand removing 150,000 soldiers from a theatre of war takes planning. Simply because Bush&Co sent them in poorly equipped doesn't mean they can be removed without a plan.
btw, I'm not surprised you would respond favorably to an idiotgram.

Wow.

You're smarter than the man sitting in the oval office...

We were promised it would be OVER, ALL troops returning to their homes AS SOON AS HE GAINED THE POTUS.

EVERY SECOND after THAT?

It's been HIS WAR, pal.
I am with Article on this. He was very clear that it wouldn't end when he took office. And if you wanted him to do so with no real plan, well that would make you a moron.
 
I am with Article on this. He was very clear that it wouldn't end when he took office. And if you wanted him to do so with no real plan, well that would make you a moron.

Actually?

YOU falling for the lies made

YOU

the morAn.

Better luck next time.

Oh.

And don't come sing THIS song to me, again.

Heard it before, and the Original Artist couldn't deliver. You? A mere copy...
 
Actually, Obama's campaign started out with that policy but it changed early on in the primaries.

AH!

Well, THAT makes ALL the difference!

Obozo backtracked, from his PROMISES, in the PRIMARIES...



In case anyone didn't NOTICE,

we're Almost TWO YEARS IN.

IS IT ENDING???

Are there any Plans, REAL PLANS,

for it TO end?

SUCK IT UP.

He's as down with it as Bush EVER was. The DIFFERENCE being,

Bush actually tried to explain it to us, in language we could understand.

OBOZO LIED ABOUT IT ALL.

Prove me wrong. SHOW me how he NEVER said those words,

NEVER conned anyone with Those Words,

Never HURT us,

our families,

WITH THOSE WORDS.

Can you do it?

Or have I closed This Thread, too?
 
I am with Article on this. He was very clear that it wouldn't end when he took office. And if you wanted him to do so with no real plan, well that would make you a moron.

Actually?

YOU falling for the lies made

YOU

the morAn.

Better luck next time.

Oh.

And don't come sing THIS song to me, again.

Heard it before, and the Original Artist couldn't deliver. You? A mere copy...

It's probably best not to accuse people of lying when you yourself are lying.

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

Barack Obama | Change We Need | Barack's New Strategy for a New World
 
Actually, Obama's campaign started out with that policy but it changed early on in the primaries.

AH!

Well, THAT makes ALL the difference!

Obozo backtracked, from his PROMISES, in the PRIMARIES...



In case anyone didn't NOTICE,

we're Almost TWO YEARS IN.

IS IT ENDING???

Are there any Plans, REAL PLANS,

for it TO end?

SUCK IT UP.

He's as down with it as Bush EVER was. The DIFFERENCE being,

Bush actually tried to explain it to us, in language we could understand.

OBOZO LIED ABOUT IT ALL.

Prove me wrong. SHOW me how he NEVER said those words,

NEVER conned anyone with Those Words,

Never HURT us,

our families,

WITH THOSE WORDS.

Can you do it?

Or have I closed This Thread, too?

You probably should have waited to post that ... you look like an even bigger idiot now.
 
To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war.

I'm so PROUD OF HIM!!!

I've changed my mind!

He spoke TRUTH,

except for,

oh, OOPS!

We're STILL there.

OUR CHILDREN are STILL dying on this battlefield.

But I'm the one in error???

Are you in touch with any Sort of what normal folks call REALITY???
 
To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war.

I'm so PROUD OF HIM!!!

I've changed my mind!

He spoke TRUTH,

except for,

oh, OOPS!

We're STILL there.

OUR CHILDREN are STILL dying on this battlefield.

But I'm the one in error???

Are you in touch with any Sort of what normal folks call REALITY???

Well if you read a bit more than what I put in big bold letters you would have seen this too.

After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

Seems to me he's doing exactly what he said he would do.
 

Forum List

Back
Top