View Full Version : Who are the really big spenders

08-23-2010, 07:07 PM
Obama spent more money on one pork filled bill than the entire cost of the Iraq war since it began!!!!!!!!!!!

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/23/10 11:32 AM EDT
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:

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 <span style='font-size: 20pt'>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.</span> For more from Hoven, go here

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...l#ixzz0xTsaGnWM (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html#ixzz0xTsaGnWM)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...l#ixzz0xRzmELj0 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html#ixzz0xRzmELj0)

08-23-2010, 07:09 PM
Denial is much more than a river.

08-24-2010, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost <u>$100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney."</u> Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like <u>$50 billion to $60 billion.</u> In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer <u>just $1.7 billion.</u></span> Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages. </div></div>

The money spent in Iraq was a waste. The money spent on the stimulus program wasn't enough.


08-24-2010, 06:46 AM
Q. It has been pointed out on more than one occasion that there is absolutely no way the government spending could "stimulate" the economy. The only money the government can spend is either that which it takes from the taxpayers (the economy) or that which it borrows.

Borrowed money doesn't stimulate anything. It created debt.

As for the other, If the government has to take money out of the economy before it can put it into the economy, how is that stimulating anything. If you take $100 out of your savings account and deposit it in your checking account, and then write a $100 check to deposit into your savings account...what have you stimulated?????????????????????????????????


08-24-2010, 06:57 AM
Year 2 is closing in. The country is still in the tank.
If something doesnt change its going to get awful quiet out there on the Democrat side.

08-24-2010, 04:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The money spent in Iraq was a waste. The money spent on the stimulus program wasn't enough.

Q </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Now that's some funny shizzle!</span>