CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It seems that Obama has managed to spend more tax dollars in a year and a half than George Bush spent on the entire Iraq war.

Democrats were incensed by a $700 billion deficit under Bush but are absolutely mum <crickets> now that the deficit is in the trillions.

SOURCE

CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act

Published August 30, 2010 | FoxNews.com

As President Obama prepares to tie a bow on U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the total cost of the eight-year war was less than the stimulus bill passed by the Democratic-led Congress in 2009.

According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, 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.

The U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be $1.3 trillion, according to CBO. That compares to a 2007 deficit of $160.7 billion and a 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion, according to data provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

In 2007 and 2008, the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 1.2 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively.

"Relative to the size of the economy, this year's deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65 years; 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), exceeded only by last year's deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP," CBO wrote.

The CBO figures show that the most expensive year of the Iraq war was in 2008, the year when the surge proposed by Gen. David Petraeus and approved by President Bush was in full swing and the turning point in the war. The total cost of Iraq operations in 2008 was $140 billion. In 2007, the cost of Iraq operations was $124 billion.

According to an analysis by the American Thinker's Randall Hoven, the cost of the Iraq war from 2003-2008 -- when Bush was in office -- was $20 billion less than the cost of education spending and less than a quarter of the cost of Medicare spending during that same period.
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
I guess this kind of kills off the only point the left has ever used against Obamas out of control spending.

At least the war provides jobs and puts money into the economy. The stimulas has done nothing but put us more in debt.

 

2minkey

bootlicker
regardless the war was a waste, just like much of the stimulus. and, certainly, the total cost of the war has yet to be understood.

i wonder how they're figuring the value of trade that america has lost because the rest of the world thought we were assholes for invading iraq?

what level of debt did we assume because of WWII (which pulled us from a depression)?
 

spike

New Member
The war killed a shit ton of people unnecessarily and was a complete waste while Bush and Obama's stimulus saved a ton of jobs and staved the worst of the economic disaster from the last administration.

We could certainly start addressing the deficit by letting the disasterous Bush tax cuts expire.

Republicans like to claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" and point to the huge 2009 budget deficit. They use charts that show the 2009 deficit was, indeed, huge and about triple the prior year's borrowing. But the 2009 budget was the last year of BUSH budgets.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2010/01/cato_dont_blame_1.htm
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
Great, 100,000 dead terrorist drawn to fight the white devil. Money well spent.

You must be listening to Obama like he was telling the truth about the economy. Must be difficult to keep believing.





unprecedented failure.

ONE term pResident.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
The declared cost of the two wars together is approaching $1.1trillion. There are, of course, hidden costs which won't be declared and which fall under the pentagon's discretion.

$1.1trillion spent securing two foreign nations, one secular and one Muslim, only to hand it back to despots with different faces than the old ones - essentially unchanged.
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
Wheeling out the unprecedented thing so you can be proven wrong again? :laugh:

Damn, you are just a glutton for punishment.
Ohio: Bush 50, Obama 42

A new GOP-boosting blockbuster from Rasmussen? Not quite: This comes from Kos’s new pollster, PPP.

The Bushitler over the Lightworker in the paradigm midwestern swing state — by eight points. On a gut level, that strikes me as more amazing than even yesterday’s Gallup blockbuster.
We’ll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there’s one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they’d rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.
Independents hold that view by a 44-37 margin and there are more Democrats who would take Bush back (11%) than there are Republicans who think Obama’s preferable (3%.)

The typical battleground this year isn’t Ohio, says PPP, it’s … California. In fact, this isn’t the first poll they’ve put out in the past few months indicating that Bush leads Obama in some surprising metric. Remember this one back in June showing that more Louisianans approved of Bush’s handling of Katrina than of The One’s handling of the oil spill? There’s a lot going on in these 43 vs. 44 comparisons: Part of it is performance; part of it is nostalgia for a time when the economy was growing; part of it is new respect for Bush vis-a-vis the way he’s handled himself as an ex-president; and part of it is general disaffection with The One’s agenda leading any alternative to look rosier by comparison. But part of it too, I think, is what John Dickerson shrewdly identifies in this Slate piece. The great knock on Bush, of course, was that he was so singularly incompetent that replacing him with anyone would necessarily mean a better economy and progress in the war. Replacing him with a global messiah, though? Big improvements in both areas. And yet, 18 months later, here we are facing a double-dip and ever-rising pessimism about Afghanistan. The “it’s all Bush’s fault” meme will be evergreen on the left, but the more trouble Obama has, the less singular Bush’s incompetence looks, which is bound to mean an uptick in Strange New Respect for Dubya.

....more at HotAir.


Dumbfuckistan.jpg is indeed shrinking

LMAO, you are so diluted.


 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
The declared cost of the two wars together is approaching $1.1trillion. There are, of course, hidden costs which won't be declared and which fall under the pentagon's discretion.

$1.1trillion spent securing two foreign nations, one secular and one Muslim, only to hand it back to despots with different faces than the old ones - essentially unchanged.

Ah, yes, the Liberal misdirection ploy.

You take the contention from what the war in Iraq has cost and combine another war with it so you can cook the books to make the original contention seem flawed.

Won't work.

The article is about the cost of the IRAQ WAR not the Iraq war and Afghanistan war combined.

Nice try, though.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Ah, yes, the Liberal misdirection ploy.

You take the contention from what the war in Iraq has cost and combine another war with it so you can cook the books to make the original contention seem flawed.

Won't work.

The article is about the cost of the IRAQ WAR not the Iraq war and Afghanistan war combined.

Nice try, though.
Great... compare the Iraq war against the 2010 Obama deficit minus the 2009 Bush deficit.
$1,3296T - $1,23114T

Perhaps you'll begin to see how ridiculous your original post is.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
The post is about the cost of the IRAQ WAR, not the deficit.

The article is about the cost of the Stimulus Act, not the deficit.

The article is about the comparison of the two, not the deficit.

Nice try -- again.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
mkay... how of of the stimulus act is Bush's and how much is Obama's ?

Now you have something. The first stimulus was a failure and Obama, seeing that failure, galloped forward to emulate it. BOTH stimulus packages were, and are, failures.

The current stimulus is Obama's; and he told us that if we didn't do it the world economy would falter. We did it and the world economy faltered.

ZERO SUM GAIN.

If you really want to see the deficits simply read THIS

If you want to discuss the deficits, start a new thread and I will be happy to participate.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
no, jim, the thread is about shitty budgeting, because that is what you're trying to pin on the dems.
 
Top