Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

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... 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...

* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more...

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html

[marks2065 0]

Quote

News:

Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

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... 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...

* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more...

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html

ouch that will leave some marks

[quade 4]

The article you've quoted is disingenuous and misleading at best.

As of February 2010 the amount of money congress has authorized specifically for Iraq has been $704 billion. No question there and easily traceable.

What the number doesn't take into consideration are interest rates to repay the loan associated with the $704 billion and the costs associated in dealing with the aftermath of the war, such as medical care for wounded soldiers.

If you have a mortgage I'm nearly certain you're aware that the price you agree to pay for a home isn't the total sum of the money you'll ever pay for the house.

If you're going to use CBO numbers to justify the amount authorized is $705 billion, then I think you also pretty much have to use CBO numbers to talk about the total costs; at least $2.4 trillion. However, that estimate was made in 2007 so it doesn't take into account a number of other authorizations.

The $3 trillion dollor is more recent (although not made by the CBO), but generally considered to be more accurate.

Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The article you've quoted is disingenuous and misleading at best.

As of February 2010 the amount of money congress has authorized specifically for Iraq has been $704 billion. No question there and easily traceable.

What the number doesn't take into consideration are interest rates to repay the loan associated with the $704 billion and the costs associated in dealing with the aftermath of the war, such as medical care for wounded soldiers.

If you have a mortgage I'm nearly certain you're aware that the price you agree to pay for a home isn't the total sum of the money you'll ever pay for the house.

If you're going to use CBO numbers to justify the amount authorized is $705 billion, then I think you also pretty much have to use CBO numbers to talk about the total costs; at least $2.4 trillion. However, that estimate was made in 2007 so it doesn't take into account a number of other authorizations.

The $3 trillion dollor is more recent (although not made by the CBO), but generally considered to be more accurate.

Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

A wiki source
You go Quade

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The article you've quoted is disingenuous and misleading at best.

As of February 2010 the amount of money congress has authorized specifically for Iraq has been $704 billion. No question there and easily traceable.

What the number doesn't take into consideration are interest rates to repay the loan associated with the $704 billion and the costs associated in dealing with the aftermath of the war, such as medical care for wounded soldiers.

If you have a mortgage I'm nearly certain you're aware that the price you agree to pay for a home isn't the total sum of the money you'll ever pay for the house.

If you're going to use CBO numbers to justify the amount authorized is $705 billion, then I think you also pretty much have to use CBO numbers to talk about the total costs; at least $2.4 trillion. However, that estimate was made in 2007 so it doesn't take into account a number of other authorizations.

The $3 trillion dollor is more recent (although not made by the CBO), but generally considered to be more accurate.

Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

And mine was posted first

your hypocrisy shows yet again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

A wiki source
You go Quade

Prove it wrong.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

And mine was posted first

I dunno man, on my calendar August 23 comes before August 30.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Quote

A wiki source
You go Quade

Your ability to read-laughable.

Discount the source-attack the poster, with a mild PA tossed in. Cool

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

A wiki source
You go Quade

Prove it wrong.

Done.

True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

I'm guessing you didn't notice I changed it about 2 seconds later. Far faster than the four minutes it took you to respond.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Done.

True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion

I see. Well, that makes perfect sense if you continue to lump in with other governmental increases to programs the right doesn't like and extend that over 10 years. Unfortunately for you, that's not actually what we're talking about and the author of that blog post has his head up his ass.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Done.

True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion

I see. Well, that makes perfect sense if you continue to lump in every other governmental increase to programs the right doesn't like and extend that over 10 years. Unfortunately for you, that's not actually what we're talking about and the author of that blog post has his head up his ass.

Those increases were all part of the stimulus bill, were they not?

I seem to recall YOU being the one, above, that said that you couldn't just take "the amount of money congress has authorized specifically for Iraq" as justification for a direct comparison. Seems like you would need to "take into consideration are interest rates to repay the loan associated with the $704 $789 billion and the costs associated in dealing with the aftermath of the war stimulus", wouldn't you say?

Oh - I forgot - that tactic is only valid when used on the Republicans, isn't it? No *wonder* you're so testy over it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skyrider 0]

Like teaching Helen Keller to communicate!

[quade 4]

Quote

Those increases were all part of the stimulus bill, were they not?

One time, not continuous for 10 years. That's the completely disingenuous part of the blog post. He leads you astray with the numbers that don't actually exist. He even admits he's going to do it, but buries it inside the copy.

Quote

So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Which . . . they're not.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Those increases were all part of the stimulus bill, were they not?

One time, not continuous for 10 years. That's the completely disingenuous part of the blog post. He leads you astray with the numbers that don't actually exist. He even admits he's going to do it, but buries it inside the copy.

Quote

So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Which . . . they're not.

Well, by all means - please provide the bills that have reduced those expenditures back to pre-stimulus levels.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those increases were all part of the stimulus bill, were they not?

One time, not continuous for 10 years. That's the completely disingenuous part of the blog post. He leads you astray with the numbers that don't actually exist. He even admits he's going to do it, but buries it inside the copy.

Quote

So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Which . . . they're not.

Well, by all means - please provide the bills that have reduced those expenditures back to pre-stimulus levels.

THAT would be a David Blaine Masterpiece!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Those increases were all part of the stimulus bill, were they not?

One time, not continuous for 10 years. That's the completely disingenuous part of the blog post. He leads you astray with the numbers that don't actually exist. He even admits he's going to do it, but buries it inside the copy.

Quote

So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Which . . . they're not.

I highly doubt that we would have had the stimulus package, the Wall Street Bailout, the recession, the housing market collapse or the completely unneeded discretionary Iraq War if a bunch of dumbasses had not voted for a TEXICAN Dumbass who fooled them twice

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those increases were all part of the stimulus bill, were they not?

One time, not continuous for 10 years. That's the completely disingenuous part of the blog post. He leads you astray with the numbers that don't actually exist. He even admits he's going to do it, but buries it inside the copy.

Quote

So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Which . . . they're not.

I highly doubt that we would have had the stimulus package, the Wall Street Bailout, the recession, the housing market collapse or the completely unneeded discretionary Iraq War if a bunch of dumbasses had not voted for a TEXICAN Dumbass who fooled them twice

The key to Walstreet failing is that no one ever considered that Joe Shmoe could get on the internet and buy small pieces of everything. Currancy, minor and major stocks, all that can be done in the stock market was available to the layman that didn't know what he was doing to the economy.

So - yeah - given the tech at the time, it would have hapopened no matter who was in office.

It just gives the world a scape goat . . . just like the one we have now . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

Well, by all means - please provide the bills that have reduced those expenditures back to pre-stimulus levels.

Understand we seem to be talking about two different things; Iraq vs the Stimulus program and the deficit as a whole.

The CBO currently estimates smaller deficits until 2015 followed by a slow but steady increase thereafter. There are a LOT of factors that go into this but the stimulus package isn't really one of them.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/index.cfm

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those increases were all part of the stimulus bill, were they not?

One time, not continuous for 10 years. That's the completely disingenuous part of the blog post. He leads you astray with the numbers that don't actually exist. He even admits he's going to do it, but buries it inside the copy.

Quote

So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Which . . . they're not.

I highly doubt that we would have had the stimulus package, the Wall Street Bailout, the recession, the housing market collapse or the completely unneeded discretionary Iraq War if a bunch of dumbasses had not voted for a TEXICAN Dumbass who fooled them twice

The key to Walstreet failing is that no one ever considered that Joe Shmoe could get on the internet and buy small pieces of everything. Currancy, minor and major stocks, all that can be done in the stock market was available to the layman that didn't know what he was doing to the economy.

So - yeah - given the tech at the time, it would have hapopened no matter who was in office.

It just gives the world a scape goat . . . just like the one we have now . . .

Twice... he did it twice.... shame on those who were fooled. His past performance SHOULD have been a clue to all of you

[quade 4]

Quote

The key to Walstreet failing is that no one ever considered that Joe Shmoe could get on the internet and buy small pieces of everything. Currancy, minor and major stocks, all that can be done in the stock market was available to the layman that didn't know what he was doing to the economy.

That's not only false, that's laughably false.

Joe Schmoe didn't invent Credit Default Swaps - essentially gambling on loans going belly up. The big investment houses did and the guys that profited from them knew EXACTLY what they were doing in giving shitty loans to people that couldn't afford them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, by all means - please provide the bills that have reduced those expenditures back to pre-stimulus levels.

Understand we seem to be talking about two different things; Iraq vs the Stimulus program and the deficit as a whole.

The CBO currently estimates smaller deficits until 2015 followed by a slow but steady increase thereafter. There are a LOT of factors that go into this but the stimulus package isn't really one of them.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/index.cfm

[quade 4]

It's all there. Right where I linked it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, by all means - please provide the bills that have reduced those expenditures back to pre-stimulus levels.

Understand we seem to be talking about two different things; Iraq vs the Stimulus program and the deficit as a whole.

The CBO currently estimates smaller deficits until 2015 followed by a slow but steady increase thereafter. There are a LOT of factors that go into this but the stimulus package isn't really one of them.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/index.cfm

No, we're still on those "programs Republicans hate" that you said were one-time increases. I won't bother to repeat the request, since you quoted it above.


TWICE

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's all there. Right where I linked it.

No, it's not - I didn't ask for a CBO estimate of deficits. I asked for the bills that reduce the expenditures of the "programs Republicans hate" back to their pre-stimulus level, since you said they were one-time increases.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706