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

Discussion in 'Economy' started by daveman, Aug 24, 2010.

  1. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    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:

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    Once again, it makes a funny noise when reality and leftist ideas collide.
     
  3. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    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
     
  4. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    exactly.
     
  5. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,745
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,155
    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?).
     
  6. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,387
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,387
    glad you agree
     
  7. fyrenza
    Offline

    fyrenza Ariel Looney Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,086
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    south Texas
    Ratings:
    +378
    What's the cost of all of that,

    during the time it's been OBOZO'S WAR???
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,519
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,930
    THAT is different. Just ask any Liberal.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,745
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,155
    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.
     
  10. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,387
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,387
    it has always been his war
    just as it has been every Americans war
    or are liberals now somehow exempt?
     

Share This Page