- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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...."
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.
Of course he is also confusing deficit spending (which is stimulative) with the specific "stimulus packages" that have been spent by the government
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.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?
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.
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?
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.
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...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?