chevysoldier Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/cbo-years-iraq-war-cost-stimulus-act/OMG Fox news!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 Boy, isn't it handy how they condensed it down to a nice little graph to get their point across.Also, it's funny how they don't account for Afghanistan as well... and that number is still growing. The TARP was a one-time bump given the huge economic ditch that we dug ourselves into over the past 8 years of fiscal irresponsibility -- passing stuff without any way of how to pay for it.Here's a report with actual numbers... though it's not the CBO report mentioned in the articlehttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdfyes, there's some numbers close to $709B in that document (Though no where does it list $709B figure anywhere), but doesn't take in account total costs. Good job Faux news!Wiki has some good citation on the long term costs as well that aren't accounted for in that $709B figure used for political purposes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustinsn3485 Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 Boy, isn't it handy how they condensed it down to a nice little graph to get their point across.Also, it's funny how they don't account for Afghanistan as well... and that number is still growing. The TARP was a one-time bump given the huge economic ditch that we dug ourselves into over the past 8 years of fiscal irresponsibility -- passing stuff without any way of how to pay for it.Here's a report with actual numbers... though it's not the CBO report mentioned in the articlehttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdfyes, there's some numbers close to $709B in that document (Though no where does it list $709B figure anywhere), but doesn't take in account total costs. Good job Faux news!Wiki has some good citation on the long term costs as well that aren't accounted for in that $709B figure used for political purposes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-0It's funny to me that you bash fox news then use wiki as a source...That said I don't much trust news sources either.I have nothing to add to this topic btw, we're screwed no matter what the source. Just grab your ankles and hang on tight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted August 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704320104575015072822042394.htmlonsider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well.By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.Mr. Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7%. Mr. Obama's plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade.Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010.Mr. Bush did sign the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) into law and loaned $240 billion to banks. But those loans are being returned at a profit to the Treasury. Rather than using those funds to pay down the deficit, Mr. Obama wants to use them for new spending. What's more, he has lavished some $320 billion from TARP on car companies, union allies, and pet causes that will never be fully returned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 It's funny to me that you bash fox news then use wiki as a source...No, see, you fail at reading my post. I'm not using Wiki as a source other than to show where the sources are. Wiki has citations that you can follow through on...Regarding your WSJ Op-Ed..written byMr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush'nuff saidFrom the comments section:According to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htmThe history of the debt is as follows:09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.7509/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.4909/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.4809/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.2309/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.5009/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.3209/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.6209/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.1609/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.0609/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86Where did Rove get his numbers from?^---- Rove is a lying weasel, and a horrible one at that. I just wish I could shed any semblance of a conscience I have and lie through my teeth for sake of pandering to the conservatives.I see it as a sad thing that I have to verify all the information I'm told, but others see it as opportunity to leech off the laziness and ignorance of the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 ummm, debt and spending aren't the same. Although doing both excessively is a formula for disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustinsn3485 Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 No, see, you fail at reading my post. I'm not using Wiki as a source other than to show where the sources are. Wiki has citations that you can follow through on...I think I see the problem. I don't read your posts. I quickly skim them in order to get to the next post that I don't read. Don't be offended, you're not the only one. I actually rarely read any political posts. I clicked on this topic on accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 Accidents happen I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 According to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htmThe history of the debt is as follows:09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.7509/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.4909/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.4809/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.2309/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.5009/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.3209/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.6209/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.1609/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.0609/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86Fixed it for you...The Wiki information, now showing the increase per year in Trillions of dollars... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 (edited) ...and if you take TARP from that last bar...It's on par with what Bush increased the debt by in 2008. Also for those interested, go ahead and plot the YOY debt increase when Clinton was in office compared to Bush...http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htmDate Dollar Amount 09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66An increase of 1.6T over an entire 8 years. Bush blew that outta the water. Edited August 31, 2010 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 I'm sorry, but I really can't get past the concept of a nearly 2 trillion increase in debt in a single year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 (edited) I'm certainly not giving anyone a pass... but here have been a few extenuating circumstances in the interim. That's not a free pass, but there are some mitigating factors.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000576-503544.htmlEmphasis my own...The debt now stands at $12.6 trillion. On the day Mr. Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion. President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days. But the Obama Administration routinely blames the Bush Administration for inheriting a budget surplus and turning it into years of record-breaking deficits and debt -- and then leaving it on the doorstep of the new president. "I walked into office facing a massive deficit, most of which was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program," Mr. Obama said last month in a speech to corporate executives at a Business Roundtable conference. "When we walked in, we had a deficit of $1.3 trillion and projected debt over the course of a decade of $8 trillion," he told the CEOs on February 24th. "The lost revenue from this recession put us in an even deeper hole. And the steps we took to save the economy from depression last year have necessarily added to the deficit -- about $1 trillion, compared to the $8 trillion that we inherited."If you prefer... we can look at it on a % basis. Bush raised the debt about +100%, Obama is approx. +20% right now.Posted just for you Pauly, save you the trouble of posting it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Ixtk-_clo Edited August 31, 2010 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 (edited) I guess you'll have to point me where he's not doing as such? He's just answering the critics.If someone with no mechanical ability brought you a wrecked Duc and stood over your shoulder while you did your thing, assessed the damage, found part costs, determined labor, etc... and was criticizing you the entire time... you'd just sit there and continue to work on their bike? No, I have a feeling you'd tell them to STFU and GTFO while you work -- probably in no uncertain professional terms.Obama has about 100M+ of these people and they keep coming back into the workshop... Edited August 31, 2010 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 Simply: Delegation. He's not an economist, or an accountant, or a military strategist... so you surround yourself with people that have those aptitudes, and have to see through any bullshit they're feeding you, and temper everything from a political perspective.But, stuff doesn't happen overnight... you can't force people to go out and spend money tomorrow to fix the economy. And this deficit thing, there's still no better analogy than bitching about the cost of a tow truck when you (or the last guy who was driving) put the economy in the ditch. It was a necessary measure, which compromises were made... so we didn't get the Class 8 International tow truck like some wanted to instantly yank us out, we only paid for the bare bone 1979 CK1500 with rusty winch cables in hopes that's just enough to slowly but surely put us back on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 So' date=' as President Obama, you own the fact that you aren't an economist, accountant or a military strategist, but insist on not listening to the advice of your personally appointed economist, accountant and military strategist? Or, to be more fair, listen to what they say and only apply what your vast lack of experience in any of it tells you to. [/quote']What else can you do? Unless you know everything about everything... just better hope you have enough broad knowledge of history, math, politics, general intelligence and experience, plus having your bullshit filter operational. It helps to be skeptical about EVERYTHING, also be willing to verify and check with multiple sources on things.Note: God is not a credible source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedTriple44444 Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 Denial... it's not just a river in Africa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alab32 Posted September 1, 2010 Report Share Posted September 1, 2010 What else can you do? Unless you know everything about everything... just better hope you have enough broad knowledge of history, math, politics, general intelligence and experience, plus having your bullshit filter operational. It helps to be skeptical about EVERYTHING, also be willing to verify and check with multiple sources on things.Note: God is not a credible source.What experience are we talking about? I know he isnt relying on that... well, I hope not at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.