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

[Renae]

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.)


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

Facts, they burn Liberals at everyturn. Bookmark this for the next time someone says "If we'd just have not wasted all that money in Iraq...."

 

[Wiseone]

The blue parts on that graph is ONLY supplemental funds, which technically are the only funds appropriated by Congress specifically for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
Here's the 2009 blue section:
News Release | The White House

However, if one looks at the massive increase in the DoD budget as well as other considerations regarding the Iraq war, such as VA benefits, some of which are harder to track than others, the real cost is much much higher than what you are making it out to be. There is no denying that there has been a huge increase in spending across all aspects of governments because of the Iraq war, not all the money just goes to the DoD, a lot goes to the State Department, or the new DHS, DOE, etc.

Here's the DoD budget since 2001-2010
Defense.gov News Release: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET FOR FY 2000
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

You can easily see a much greater increase from 2003 to the present in the DoD budget, as well as additional supplemental funds given to the DoD from Congress. The problem with your analysis, again, is that it ignored the DoD spending and funds given to them for the purposes of waging war.

So if you want to really understand the DoD budget you should take a look at this:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2010/fy2010_summary_tables_whole.pdf

 

[Wiseone]

Also you should remember the money spent by Congress not given to the DoD or perhaps not even spent directly because of the Iraq war but as a result of it or perhaps indirectly from it.

For example DHS needs more money for TSA because of increased terrorist attack potential because of the Iraq war, or a Defense contractor gets a larger-than-peace-time order for tanks, bullets, bombs, body armor, vehicles because of the Iraq war. Or a R&D firm gets billions of dollars to develop new vehicles, such as the MRAP.

None of those funds go to the DoD or even are labeled as "because of Iraq" but they are all going to support that mission and that war. And those are the easy ones to find, if we really wanted to get down and dirty we'd try and figure out how much of that other stuff is because of Iraq, assuming that we would need less if we were only fighting in Afghanistan, so all that growth cannot be attributed directly to Iraq.

So given the complexity of the congressional budgeting process and all the different places money goes which results in things which support or support in part the Iraq war, not to mention all the intended consequences from that war, make it impossible to summarize the total in one simple graph and a few bullet points. And CLEARLY are much greater than your totals.

 

[PeteEU]

And what Mr. Vic forgets to mention is that the 2009 figure are funds appropriated under Bush, and much has been carried on over in 2010.. but dont let facts get in the way of your partisan hatred.

 

[hazlnut]

Facts, they burn Liberals at everyturn. Bookmark this for the next time someone says "If we'd just have not wasted all that money in Iraq...."

Gee, when you said "little known FACT", I though we were going to actually get facts... not spin.

Yawn, Vicchio...

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Of course he is also confusing deficit spending (which is stimulative) with the specific "stimulus packages" that have been spent by the government

 

[hazlnut]

And I'm not sure any police officer or teacher who still has a job considers it a failure.

I think perhaps you, Vicchio, were mislead by Fox news as to what the stimulus was supposed to do. And did do.

Maybe you should check out some other sources of information.

 

[American]

Also you should remember the money spent by Congress not given to the DoD or perhaps not even spent directly because of the Iraq war but as a result of it or perhaps indirectly from it.

For example DHS needs more money for TSA because of increased terrorist attack potential because of the Iraq war, or a Defense contractor gets a larger-than-peace-time order for tanks, bullets, bombs, body armor, vehicles because of the Iraq war. Or a R&D firm gets billions of dollars to develop new vehicles, such as the MRAP.

None of those funds go to the DoD or even are labeled as "because of Iraq" but they are all going to support that mission and that war. And those are the easy ones to find, if we really wanted to get down and dirty we'd try and figure out how much of that other stuff is because of Iraq, assuming that we would need less if we were only fighting in Afghanistan, so all that growth cannot be attributed directly to Iraq.

So given the complexity of the congressional budgeting process and all the different places money goes which results in things which support or support in part the Iraq war, not to mention all the intended consequences from that war, make it impossible to summarize the total in one simple graph and a few bullet points. And CLEARLY are much greater than your totals.

This is all speculation, and there is no way to know that. You have nothing to compare it to. You'd have to know what the spending would have been had we never gone to war even with 9/11.

 

[American]

Of course he is also confusing deficit spending (which is stimulative) with the specific "stimulus packages" that have been spent by the government

Spent to get votes. Please enlighten us on all the job creation in spite of recent reports that we're losing ground. Just wait till the tax cuts expire, your stimulus will be like pissing into a fan.

 

[American]

And what Mr. Vic forgets to mention is that the 2009 figure are funds appropriated under Bush, and much has been carried on over in 2010.. but dont let facts get in the way of your partisan hatred.

Nor in the way or yours.

 

[hazlnut]

As far as I know, the W. recession never turned into a depression.

Explain the failure.

I mean, we get that the W. tax cuts and deregulation were abysmal failures. But the policies that saved our collective asses.... Don't think so, V.

 

[Wiseone]

This is all speculation, and there is no way to know that. You have nothing to compare it to. You'd have to know what the spending would have been had we never gone to war even with 9/11.

Yes the DHS point is speculation, perhaps I should have made that clearer thats my mistake. Its something I wouldnt doubt as being true but I never researched it. What is not speculation however is the other two points about defense contractor spending and R&D spending, those would have to go up to support Iraq as they are neccesary to wage war.

So the point being that spending on the Iraq war, or spending as a consequence of that war, was greater than V's graph states still stands.

 

[American]

Yes the DHS point is speculation, perhaps I should have made that clearer thats my mistake. Its something I wouldnt doubt as being true but I never researched it. What is not speculation however is the other two points about defense contractor spending and R&D spending, those would have to go up to support Iraq as they are neccesary to wage war.

So the point being that spending on the Iraq war, or spending as a consequence of that war, was greater than V's graph states still stands.

I work in R&D, and I can tell you exactly when the mistake in research happened. It occurred under Clinton. We weren't prepared for the war after 9/11 when it happened. All the crap about armor that flooded the news for years. All this due to cuts in the 1990's. Now, in principle there wasn't anything wrong with Clinton trying to change or reduce the military, but he overdid it. I remember he made a speech in which he stated R&D would not be cut in order to maintain superiority in technology....but believe me the cuts were huge. Short sightedness was the problem....during peace is when you prepare for war, not after the war has begun.

 

[Wiseone]

I work in R&D, and I can tell you exactly when the mistake in research happened. It occurred under Clinton. We weren't prepared for the war after 9/11 when it happened. All the crap about armor that flooded the news for years. All this due to cuts in the 1990's. Now, in principle there wasn't anything wrong with Clinton trying to change or reduce the military, but he overdid it. I remember he made a speech in which he stated R&D would not be cut in order to maintain superiority in technology....but believe me the cuts were huge. Short sightedness was the problem....during peace is when you prepare for war, not after the war has begun.

From what I understand about the post Cold-War defense cuts, I agree with you entirely. Cutting back on the military was understandable after 45 years of preparing for WWIII, but it could have been done smarter.

 

[Renae]

And I'm not sure any police officer or teacher who still has a job considers it a failure.

I think perhaps you, Vicchio, were mislead by Fox news as to what the stimulus was supposed to do. And did do.

Maybe you should check out some other sources of information.

This didn't come from Foxnews.

You have the absurd notion that as long as a few jobs were saved, the pricetag is immaterial. Spending 250k to save a job that pays 50k is.... insane.

I'm not the one whom is incapable of self created opinions.

 

[Wiseone]

This didn't come from Foxnews.

You have the absurd notion that as long as a few jobs were saved, the pricetag is immaterial. Spending 250k to save a job that pays 50k is.... insane.

I'm not the one whom is incapable of self created opinions.

You are drifting off topic. Address some of our concerns with your analysis.
Or more to the point, how do you answer for all the other costs associated with the Iraq War outside of supplemental funding, which were included in an increased DoD budget or were unintended or neccesary consequences of wartime?

 

[Renae]

You are drifting off topic. Address some of our concerns with your analysis.
Or more to the point, how do you answer for all the other costs associated with the Iraq War outside of supplemental funding, which were included in an increased DoD budget or were unintended or neccesary consequences of wartime?

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:

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

Try sticking to the ARTICLE instead of creating arguments outside of the information presented. Is the CBO number valid or are they lying?

 

[Wiseone]

Try sticking to the ARTICLE instead of creating arguments outside of the information presented. Is the CBO number valid or are they lying?

I am not creating arguments, I'm simply pointing out that their numbers are misleading and in my opinion are in fact blatant lies. Why? Well like I said, they only seem to be counting the SUPPLEMENTAL appropriations for the Iraq war and nothing else. And I say "seem to be" because they in no way explain how they came about these numbers. And anyone with any sense of how Federal spending works knows that things just dont fall into nice categories like "Iraq War."

Does it include the costs of purchasing equipment of the Iraq War?
Does it include the costs of wounded veterans and veterans pay?
Does it include the costs of R&D for new equipment because of the Iraq War?
Does it include the costs of the new DoD, Department of Defense, budget?
Does it include the costs of the State Department's additional diplomatic activity due to the Iraq War?
Does it include the costs of private security companies used in Iraq?
Does it include the costs of the loans and rebuilding in Iraq?
Does it include the costs of CIA and other intelligence operations?
Does it include the costs of a million other damn things?

The answer is I don't know, and neither do you. But what I do know is that the DoD budget since 2003 is LARGER than 709 Billion dollars, and not only larger but over FIVE TIMES LARGER. It fact since 2003 the DoD Budget, including supplemental funding, is roughly 3,849,000,000,000 dollars. Thats 3.8 TRILLION dollars.

Which would mean that if the Iraq War only cost us 709 Billion dollars that the DoD spent roughly 3.1 TRILLION dollars on something else. What something else? Hell if I know, it certainly wasn't all in Afghanistan where we never had more troops or assets positioned than we did in Iraq until only a couple of months ago. So where did that 3.1 Trillion go!?!?

And lets not mention that much of the R&D for new equipment and much of the cost for rebuilding Iraq doesn't come from the DoD. Surely those costs should be considered part of the cost of war? So that takes up some of the 709 Billion.
And lets not forget the cost of treating all the wounded soldiers from Iraq, the Department of Veterans Affairs is not DoD either, but surely that should be counted as part of the Iraq War? So that takes up more of that 709 Billion.

The ONLY way 709 Billion makes ANY damn sense is when you ONLY count supplemental appropriations to the DoD and JUST the DoD, no other groups or agencies or departments. You add up the areas marked "War Funding" and you get 680 Billion, pretty damn close to the 709. And why is it only close? Because there's a million difference ways to calculate the cost of a war since so much money goes in so many different directions, either relating directly or indirectly to the war or as a unintended or other consequences of going to war. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to think we only spent 709 Billion in Iraq or for Iraq or because Iraq or any other vernacular you want to use.

 

[digsbe]

Obama is a hypocrite. Regardless, Obama has run the debt up far more than Bush. If people objected to the Iraq war under the guise of "it's expensive" then why turn a blind eye to Obama's spending, the failed stimulus, and the skyrocketing debt? This is debt like we have never seen before. Many say the Tea Party is hypocritical because "they weren't there" when Bush was spending. It seems they agree with the left this time, in that the left threw up a big red flag to the Iraq war on he grounds of it's expense. Would this make the left hypocritical because under Bush they opposed the war spending and feared the debt, yet under Obama they praise his enormous spending that has failed to do anything productive?

 

[Coronado]

Obama is a hypocrite. Regardless, Obama has run the debt up far more than Bush. If people objected to the Iraq war under the guise of "it's expensive" then why turn a blind eye to Obama's spending, the failed stimulus, and the skyrocketing debt? This is debt like we have never seen before. Many say the Tea Party is hypocritical because "they weren't there" when Bush was spending. It seems they agree with the left this time, in that the left threw up a big red flag to the Iraq war on he grounds of it's expense. Would this make the left hypocritical because under Bush they opposed the war spending and feared the debt, yet under Obama they praise his enormous spending that has failed to do anything productive?

My understanding of the opposition to the war is that it was more along the lines of moral and international law. Spending never seemed to be cited nearly as much as those two reasons. I could be mistaken, though.

In any event, is it possible to be against both irresponsible spending policies, or is it required that I take a side?

 

[Boo Radley]

My understanding of the opposition to the war is that it was more along the lines of moral and international law. Spending never seemed to be cited nearly as much as those two reasons. I could be mistaken, though.

In any event, is it possible to be against both irresponsible spending policies, or is it required that I take a side?

Yes, those are the major reasons, not to discount the cost. The financial cost. We've spent a great deal, more than money, for very, very little in return.

 

[Renae]

I am not creating arguments, I'm simply pointing out that their numbers are misleading and in my opinion are in fact blatant lies. Why? Well like I said, they only seem to be counting the SUPPLEMENTAL appropriations for the Iraq war and nothing else. And I say "seem to be" because they in no way explain how they came about these numbers. And anyone with any sense of how Federal spending works knows that things just dont fall into nice categories like "Iraq War."

Does it include the costs of purchasing equipment of the Iraq War?
Does it include the costs of wounded veterans and veterans pay?
Does it include the costs of R&D for new equipment because of the Iraq War?
Does it include the costs of the new DoD, Department of Defense, budget?
Does it include the costs of the State Department's additional diplomatic activity due to the Iraq War?
Does it include the costs of private security companies used in Iraq?
Does it include the costs of the loans and rebuilding in Iraq?
Does it include the costs of CIA and other intelligence operations?
Does it include the costs of a million other damn things?

The answer is I don't know, and neither do you. But what I do know is that the DoD budget since 2003 is LARGER than 709 Billion dollars, and not only larger but over FIVE TIMES LARGER. It fact since 2003 the DoD Budget, including supplemental funding, is roughly 3,849,000,000,000 dollars. Thats 3.8 TRILLION dollars.

Which would mean that if the Iraq War only cost us 709 Billion dollars that the DoD spent roughly 3.1 TRILLION dollars on something else. What something else? Hell if I know, it certainly wasn't all in Afghanistan where we never had more troops or assets positioned than we did in Iraq until only a couple of months ago. So where did that 3.1 Trillion go!?!?

And lets not mention that much of the R&D for new equipment and much of the cost for rebuilding Iraq doesn't come from the DoD. Surely those costs should be considered part of the cost of war? So that takes up some of the 709 Billion.
And lets not forget the cost of treating all the wounded soldiers from Iraq, the Department of Veterans Affairs is not DoD either, but surely that should be counted as part of the Iraq War? So that takes up more of that 709 Billion.

The ONLY way 709 Billion makes ANY damn sense is when you ONLY count supplemental appropriations to the DoD and JUST the DoD, no other groups or agencies or departments. You add up the areas marked "War Funding" and you get 680 Billion, pretty damn close to the 709. And why is it only close? Because there's a million difference ways to calculate the cost of a war since so much money goes in so many different directions, either relating directly or indirectly to the war or as a unintended or other consequences of going to war. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to think we only spent 709 Billion in Iraq or for Iraq or because Iraq or any other vernacular you want to use.

This is stupid. I didn't write the article, create the image, I posted a link to a story I found of interest. I'm sorry you don't like what it has to say and you are incapable of clicking the source link that provides you with more information then I gave in the "blurb". If upon clicking the link and reading further you find the article doesn't say what you want to hear, then let us know that you disagree, but asking ME if it includes things you are MORE then able to go in a short manner of time find the answers to is pompous arrogance.


The only way that number makes sense is IF, read the article and find out how that number was arrived at maybe? Write the reporter and chew on him? Personally I think the context is legitimate, you just don't like the conclusion.

 

[liblady]

Obama is a hypocrite. Regardless, Obama has run the debt up far more than Bush. If people objected to the Iraq war under the guise of "it's expensive" then why turn a blind eye to Obama's spending, the failed stimulus, and the skyrocketing debt? This is debt like we have never seen before. Many say the Tea Party is hypocritical because "they weren't there" when Bush was spending. It seems they agree with the left this time, in that the left threw up a big red flag to the Iraq war on he grounds of it's expense. Would this make the left hypocritical because under Bush they opposed the war spending and feared the debt, yet under Obama they praise his enormous spending that has failed to do anything productive?

i don't think that's why most people objected to the war. THAT WAR WAS WRONG. and no one is turning a blind eye to spending, either. the jury is still out on the result of this spending. why is obama a hypocrite? because he's doing what he believes is right?

 

[pbrauer]

Facts, they burn Liberals at everyturn. Bookmark this for the next time someone says "If we'd just have not wasted all that money in Iraq...."

This is an apples and oranges comparison, first of all approximately 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts. Also the Iraq war was DESTRUCTIVE and the stimulus is CONSTRUCTIVE. The stimulus is an investment in American while the spent on the Iraq war is money down the crapper. How many of out troops will die because the stimulus.

This comparison is stupidity on steroids. I can't believe anyone buys this crap.

 

[BDBoop]

Gee, when you said "little known FACT", I though we were going to actually get facts... not spin.

Yawn, Vicchio...

Naw, man! When he said "little known fact" I thought "Hey! Is it already tinfoil beanie time?"