• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Translation: It shows Iraq War as not being the huge expense I've been told it is, and calls the failed stimulous... failed. I refuse to accept it.

Seriously, do you operate on any mode OTHER then "Emotional"?
 
MrVicchio said:
Translation: It shows Iraq War as not being the huge expense I've been told it is, and calls the failed stimulous... failed. I refuse to accept it.

Seriously, do you operate on any mode OTHER then "Emotional"?
Click to expand...

You just don't seem to know the difference between investment and throwing money down the toilet. Also, when you add all the externalities from the Iraq war, the cost to American will be trillions.
 
pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...



How do you cut taxes for those that don't pay taxes?. It would be more accurate to say that about 1/3 was wealth redistribution.
 
You conservatives continue to bore me. Although, if the "force" was real you would have the incredible mind manipulation powers that effects the weak minded. (waves hands) you will let me through.
 
JohnWOlin said:
You conservatives continue to bore me. Although, if the "force" was real you would have the incredible mind manipulation powers that effects the weak minded. (waves hands) you will let me through.
Click to expand...

:yawn: ......
 
Crunch said:
How do you cut taxes for those that don't pay taxes?. It would be more accurate to say that about 1/3 was wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a talking point to me.
 
pbrauer said:
The proof always falls on the accuser.
Click to expand...

You really want a link to the fact that Barry gave millions of non-taxpayers a check last year and called it a tax break?.... really? Have you been living under a rock? In a cave somewhere?

Did you really miss that or are you just trying to be difficult?
 
MrVicchio said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read the article, it contains NO information about how they or their source got this information, or got that number 709 Billion, NOR does it have a link to any kind of more detailed explaination. That's been one of my points for about 3 posts now, there is no explaination of how he got that number. AND when you look at the FACTS, as I have posted, you see there is NO POSSIBLE way that 709 Billion can be the total cost of the Iraq War since 2003. It is IMPOSSIBLE. The context isn't legitmate in the least, there's NO WAY IT CAN BE.

MrVicchio said:
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...."
Click to expand...

And no you didn't simply "post a link to a story you found of interest" you came here to present this information on this website as FACTUAL, and then saught to use this "factual" information to make a point about government spending, that in fact 'liberals' spend way more than 'conservatives' and that the Iraq War only costs 709 Billion dollars. You presented that 709 Billion as FACTUAL, you even call them facts, and its PURELY WRONG. And not only is it wrong there's NO WAY IN HELL it can be right, its an impossibility for 709 Billion to have paid for Iraq.

And lastly you have the gaul to whip out your trademark snobbery after clearly having done no research on this information, or without the smallest understanding of how Congress allocates funds, or without the simple ability to ask "How did they get this information?"
 
MrVicchio said:
How+much+did+the+Iraq+war+cost.gif




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...."
Click to expand...

How many Americans were killed at the peak of their lives by the stimulus package?
 
MrVicchio said:
I have no idea, I don't worry about emotional based thoughts that mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Since you have no idea, let me help you. Zero from the stimulus program.
Now, how many lives were snuffed out by the Iraq War?
 
MrVicchio said:
I have no idea, I don't worry about emotional based thoughts that mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Well judging from your rediculous support for the contents of this article, I'd say you certainly don't worry much about rational thoughts either. So are you going to admit a mistake in calling that information factual?

And just as a side, considerations towards the deaths of nearly 4,500 soldiers hardly 'means nothing.'
 
Wiseone said:
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?
Click to expand...

I thought we already acknowledged that this can't be known. There is insufficient information.
 
I think after reading this Washington Post article from March 2008, we can dismiss the notion that the total price tag for the Iraq War is less than the price tag for the Obama Stimulus program. It's foolhardy to think otherwise. From the article:

Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the [Bush] administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.

...

All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.
Click to expand...

Wiseone wins this one hands down.
 
He should go tell that to the reporter and the CBO.

Oh wait, you're using an op-ed piece from 2008 to say Wiseone won this "hands down".

It's a bleak picture. The total loss from this economic downturn -- measured by the disparity between the economy's actual output and its potential output -- is likely to be the greatest since the Great Depression. That total, itself well in excess of $1 trillion,is not included in our estimated $3 trillion cost of the war.
Click to expand...

Your source.

So I guess there we go folks, the CBO trumped by a biased OP-ED piece now 2 years old.

Damn, they should shut that place down and just read the editorial section of the paper!
 
MrVicchio said:
You're using an op-ed piece from 2008 to say Wiseone won this "hands down".
Click to expand...

That's correct...I am! And that report despite being 2-years old still states that the cost of the Iraq War is far greater than the total cost of the Stimulas. What you highlighted certainly goes to illustrate that point. So, no matter how you try to twist this issue from the cost of the Iraq War to the state of the economy, the war still cost exceedingly more than the OP states when taking into account ALL EXPENDITURES that come with the Iraq War (i.e., planning, supplying, arming, disarming, troop and equipment movement, executing, nation building/diplomatic initiatives, medical expenses including battle field tiage and VA, etc., etc., etc.) as this PoliticFact Q&A on the matter clearly states. Yes, even it says that based on some projections, the Stimulas does cost more, but it also states that those figures are based on raw data and does not take into account other factors, i.e., those aforementioned items I listed, as well as the different timeframes used to compare the costs one against the other.

The government can "hide" the numbers anywhere and place appropriations under various bills to do so, but when all the "beans" have been counted, there's no denying that the Iraq War has cost this country a fortune and will continue to do so!! Just because combat missions are over doesn't negate the fact that we still have a significant number of contingency forces there and we'll still have to pay for that until every U.S. servicemen comes home. When will that be? Who knows...the tally continues...
 
Last edited:
On a different slant to the Stimulus spending, here's an article from Yahoo.com that outlines many of the positive attributes of the stimulus bill...issues that many people may not be familiar and some of them might be happening in your neck-o-the-woods and you just don't know about it.

Give it a read, "How the Stimulus Is Changing America". Here's a snippet:

Yes, the stimulus has cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, bailed out every state, hustled record amounts of unemployment benefits and other aid to struggling families and funded more than 100,000 projects to upgrade roads, subways, schools, airports, military bases and much more. But in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, Obama's effusive Recovery Act point man, "Now the fun stuff starts!" The "fun stuff," about one-sixth of the total cost, is an all-out effort to exploit the crisis to make green energy, green building and green transportation real; launch green manufacturing industries; computerize a pen-and-paper health system; promote data-driven school reforms; and ramp up the research of the future. "This is a chance to do something big, man!" Biden said during a 90-minute interview with TIME.

For starters, the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet.
Click to expand...
 
MrVicchio said:
He should go tell that to the reporter and the CBO.
Oh wait, you're using an op-ed piece from 2008 to say Wiseone won this "hands down".
Your source.
So I guess there we go folks, the CBO trumped by a biased OP-ED piece now 2 years old.
Damn, they should shut that place down and just read the editorial section of the paper!
Click to expand...

Your article has no source either. The author, Mark Tapscott, states that another individual, Randall Hoven, has researched the cost from the CBO. So what have is a three-degree seperation from the orginal source material, its basically a came of telephone. The CBO said, which Hoven read, which Tapscott read, which YOU read. You're source isnt the CBO its Tapscott, you are trusting him to be accurate in what Hoven said, and by extension both Tapscott and you are trusting Hoven to have read and reported what the CBO said accurately.

So why don't you find from the CBO yourself, I'm assuming you mean Congressional Budget Office, exactly where this figure of 709 Billion comes from. Instead of citing a source, which by the way is clearly labeled as opinion, as fact and trusting it fully. Instead of simply trusting someone else to tell you what to think, why don't you do the research yourself and actually find it from the orginal source.

So where is your source, I've posted tons of information which show you to be wrong but you're only source is some guy who said some other guy who said he read a CBO report and it says this. Find the information yourself, from the orginal source!
 
So I decided to do all that research I requested from you myself and here we go with my findings which clearly prove, again, that you are wrong Mr. V and so is Tapscott and Hoven.
The article sited in Tapscott's article and the one Mr. V posted is here:
American Thinker: Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not

Hoven in this article cites this CBO report as his source, specifically Box 1-3 and Box 1-2. Box 1-3 is on page 32 and 33, and Box 1-2 is on page 30.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf

Now firstly the graph that appears in both articles, does NOT appear in the CBO report. That as far as I can tell is a creation of Hoven. However the 709 Billion in fact DOES have some grounds, however it is NOT a total cost for Iraq. What 709 Billion is the total amount for military operations, local security forces, diplomactic operations and foreign aid, and "other services and activities." These however are also only specific appropriations by Congress for Iraq, the DoD budget for example is far greater than these appropiated funds and the DoD has some say in how it spends it money given by Congress which is not specifically appropiated for specific reasons, and it would be impossible to believe that none of those funds went go to Iraq. The CBO report in Box 1-3 also notes that many other costs, pointing specifically out some of the VA funding, are NOT included.
Also in Box 1-3, the CBO notes that quote, "Because most appropiations for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for related activities appear in the same budget accounts as appropiations for DoD's other functions, it is impossible to determine precisely how much has been spent on those activities." This is in reference to the general DoD funding which is used at the DoD's own authority, and is NOT specifically marked for Iraq, Afghanistan, or anything else.

So in conculsion the CBO cites, in the same reported cited by Tapscott and Hoven, 709 Billion as an estimate for specifically appropiated funds given to ONLY the DoD for Iraq.

Now if we look at the comparison between the Obama Stimulus pack and this 709 Billion, the Obama Stimulus is in fact bigger. It has an estimated cost of 814 Billion by the time it runs its course which ends in 2019. But again, the 709 is NOT given by the CBO as a total cost of the Iraq War, it is specifically defined as the estimated cost of specific appropiations to the DoD only for Iraq. And lets not forget that the Iraq War is not over yet, although Iraqi Freedom is ending Sept 1st, we still have 50,000 troops over there.
 
Good job, Wiseone!

I was actually reading the same CBO report, but couldn't get through to the details fast enough. :mrgreen:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread moved, Opinion pieces do not belong in *BN*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom