What a bargain!

[WATU2]

As I recall, years ago when some of us pointed out here the folly of instituting tax cuts instead of "pay as you go" funding for the Iraq war, some claimed that was just fine, as "the US always funded wars with debt". Makes about as much sense as saying " the US always funds tax cuts with wars", but for Bush/Rumsfeld/Wolfewitz it might be more accurate.

For those who like to decry the increase in national debt under Obama, consider

1) The debt increase was a response to the largest economic disaster in 70 years which was handed off by Bush and legislation enacted by a Republican Congress (2000-2006).
2) Europe and Japan both tried non-stimulus approaches to economic down turns similar to that suggested by Republicans and they are still troubled, although coming out of it because they are starting to use stimulus similar to US policy.
3) The budget deficit is coming down at a record rate. The deficit would increase under Paul Ryan's budgets.

One final question. There has been a bi-partisan immigration bill passed by the Senate sitting in the House for months. The general consensus is that it would pass easily if voted on, but Boehner kept it bottled up to protect some Republican incumbents from having to vote on it prior to the election. The election is over. Why not just vote on the bill instead of huffing and puffing about the President taking action consistent with a bill that Congress would pass anyway?

Anyone want to bet that two years from now the electoral turnout goes from being a record low (this last election) to a record high? Should be interesting.

Hey, here's the tab!

 

[lawpoke87]

I was and remain against the Iraq War but those numbers seem rather inflated. Total defense spending has only increased a little over $300B from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2012. The deficit in 2008 was $459B jumping to $1.4T and $1.3T in 2009 and 2010 while defense spending was steady from 2008 to 2009 and only jumped $64B in 2010 (a drop in the bucket compared to $900B increase in the deficit.

The recession was obviously a major factor in the increase deficit as revenues significantly dropped. Spending increased over $500B from 2008 to 2009 but defense spending wasn't a significant factor if the numbers are correct.

Funny you mention the Republican Congress' role in the economic mess but omit the fact the it was President Clinton's home ownership program which relaxed lending requirements which ultimately led to the economic crisis. A good thought and policy imo turned into a national crisis by greedy and crooked individuals.

 

[TUMe]

Yes, we are going into deep debt slightly slower than we were. The rate of building debt has slowed. Whee!

Some of that slowing down in our road to deeper debt has been with the President kicking and screaming that sequester would destroy us.

 

[rabidTU]

Originally posted by WATU2:
As I recall, years ago when some of us pointed out here the folly of instituting tax cuts instead of "pay as you go" funding for the Iraq war, some claimed that was just fine, as "the US always funded wars with debt". Makes about as much sense as saying " the US always funds tax cuts with wars", but for Bush/Rumsfeld/Wolfewitz it might be more accurate.

For those who like to decry the increase in national debt under Obama, consider

1) The debt increase was a response to the largest economic disaster in 70 years which was handed off by Bush and legislation enacted by a Republican Congress (2000-2006).
2) Europe and Japan both tried non-stimulus approaches to economic down turns similar to that suggested by Republicans and they are still troubled, although coming out of it because they are starting to use stimulus similar to US policy.
3) The budget deficit is coming down at a record rate. The deficit would increase under Paul Ryan's budgets.

One final question. There has been a bi-partisan immigration bill passed by the Senate sitting in the House for months. The general consensus is that it would pass easily if voted on, but Boehner kept it bottled up to protect some Republican incumbents from having to vote on it prior to the election. The election is over. Why not just vote on the bill instead of huffing and puffing about the President taking action consistent with a bill that Congress would pass anyway?

Anyone want to bet that two years from now the electoral turnout goes from being a record low (this last election) to a record high? Should be interesting.

The recent debt increase was a response to the housing market "bust" initially caused by the decollateralization of home loans (Community Reinvestment Act) forced by the democrats on banks for many years beginning with Carter and enhanced by Clinton. It was basically the democrats wanting to give away low cost/free homes to people that couldn't afford them and had no collateral to put up. It mirrored what happen to the stock market that triggered the great depression when stocks were not backed up with real money, only promissory notes. Very similar results.

 

[old_goat_23]

This article and the associated study is just random ideology and has no basis in fact. The "Costs of War Project" is a made up of a bunch of uber liberal academics ("economists, anthropologists, lawyers, humanitarian personnel, and political scientists from 15 universities, the UN and other organizations") who provide absolutely nothing in the way of factual or statistical validation for their statements. The whole study is a random grab bag of factoids and bad data extrapolation. Go review their sources and methods if you don't believe me.

Want more? The head of the Costs of War Project is a liberal fruit loop named Neta Crawford. Professor Crawford has credits including research into the relationship between Brown University and Slavery as well as one nice piece entitled "The War System and Alternatives to Militarism". Yeah, some seriously unbiased thought out of that lady.

Even the Reuters article includes stuff that we all now know to be incorrect. In example, the article asserts "Former President George W. Bush's administration
cited its belief that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government held
weapons of mass destruction to justify the decision to go to war. U.S.
and allied forces later found that such stockpiles did not exist." Pretty sure that we are at over 600 soldiers injured by these non existent chemical weapons. Additionally, the WMDs was one of several reasons given for the invasion. That little paragraph by itself should have warned any reader that the article was total political BS.

Every time I read some liberal rant on the cost of the Iraq War it goes up. First it was a trillion, Now it is two trillion. I've seen other extrapolations that go as high as four trillion. Pretty sure there is no number too absurd for liberals to produce and other liberals to quote. Kind of sad given the liberal propensity to classify themselves as somehow more intelligent and discerning than us poor conservatives.

As a point of comparison, costs to the US economy from the 9/11 attacks are estimated anywhere from $300 billion (actual costs of damages and insurance outlays) to over a trillion dollars. These numbers exclude the intangible costs of oil price increases that have lasted over a decade, drops in the value of the dollar and stock marked hits ranging from 4% to over 10% depending on the market (US stock market values lost $1.4 trillion in the subsequent 5 days to 9/11). Maybe the Costs of War Project should take a look at those costs and other results of the 8 years Clinton spent gutting the military and hiding from geopolitical issues (like Bin Laden) just so they can appear to be unbiased. Yeah, I know, dream on.

With regard to the deficit reduction, I would again advise a bit of research. Most liberal economists have expressed great concern that the reduction in the Federal Deficit is a bad thing for the economy. In fact, the core of Keynesian Economics (which brought the "stimulus" and other goodies like "cash for clunkers") is that Federal spending is good for the economy regardless of the resulting deficit. Keynes was convinced that each Federal dollar spent resulted in a multiplier effect for the economy and associated tax revenues. So .... pick one. Either the stimulus is good and the current reduction of the deficit is bad OR the stimulus was a waste of money and the reduction in the deficit is good. Can't have it both ways since the standard for liberal economics precludes a reduction in the deficit being good for the economy.

Regardless of the current deficit "reduction" (which is just a reduction in the current year's deficit and not a reduction in the total Federal deficit as TUME points out) Obama will set the record for Presidential deficits at roughly $6.8 trillion. Bush is a mere piker by comparison but in second place at $3.3 trillion. Sure, Obama inherited a recession but then Bush inherited a recession (starting in 2001) and Al Quaeda.

Anyway, thanks for the distraction. Always a good time trying to understand how liberals think.

 

[TUMe]

This reminds me of something else I have seen. Liberals have, on occasion, listed money spent on highways in the total of subsidies to oil companies. But when they want to spend for the economy they refer to the same highway projects as infrastructure spending.

 

[WATU2]

Always interesting to see a creative, shoot the the messenger response full of derisive adjectives to change the subject. And it is entertaining to boot!

As for the example you cite about WMD's; pretty weak tea. At the time it meant nuclear weapons (Rice's "mushroom cloud"). Conflating old chemical weapons from the Iranian war (which we supported and knew about) is really an admission that what you object to is true.

Thanks for posting!





This post was edited on 11/15 11:22 AM by WATU2

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Always interesting to see a creative, shoot the the messenger response full of derisive adjectives to change the subject. And it is entertaining to boot!

As for the example you cite about WMD's; pretty weak tea. At the time it meant nuclear weapons (Rice's "mushroom cloud"). Conflating old chemical weapons from the Iranian war (which we supported and knew about) is really an admission that what you object to is true.

Thanks for posting!







This post was edited on 11/15 11:22 AM by WATU2

Keep up the good work Oldgoat, it's always a good sign when WATU starts to attack you.

 

[lawpoke87]

WATU,

Those war cost numbers don't add up IMO when compared to total defense spending before, during and now after the war. You have a breakdown of those numbers?

 

[aTUfan]

We spend a lot of money fighting radical muslims in the middle east.
If we hadn't; how much would it have cost to build or cities if they had been allowed to thrive here?

We might have all been speaking arabic and preying to ali.