Skip to main content

For flying their tiny jets to Washington, instead of taking coach or driving a car? GM needed 20 billion dollars to keep running? Do you wonder why the news media could care less about Michele Obama spending $200,000 for her airfare to vacation a few weeks ago in Spain? Do the American people see a double standard here? Obama has created 3 trillion dollars in debt in only 2 years and the media doesn't even care! Bush ran a 400 billion dollar deficit with two wars and was bashed every day by the media! Has Chavez taken over the media? Or is the media just crooked?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Debt is not deficit, so please get your nomenclature correct. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Astan have cost over $1trillion and produced no quantifiable results. The future costs for med care for returning soldiers, and the cost of leaving all the equipment, and then replacing it with new, are not included.

The security requirements of the First Lady make travel by commercial jet impossible. If you dont like Obama, then come up with a candidate capable of beating him in 2012. So far, the Reps still have no leaders, except for Palin and Limbaugh.


quote:
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.)

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer....9.html#ixzz0xgQgLz94


While expensive, the entire Iraq war is less expensive than one month of Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by Chuck Norris:
In just one month Obama spent more than the cost of the entire Iraq War effort that started in 2003.

When you factor in "unfunded obligations" like social security, our debt is higher than the GDP of the entire world.


Yes, the month the stimulus bill passed the deficit for the current year increase by the amount of the stimulus. The problem is deficit spending, not the name of the President.

The unfunded future obligations of the fedgov in the next 50 years total $35Trillion to $60Trillion. There will have to be large increases in fedgov tax revenues to deal with those deficits in the next 50 years.

BushII was merely able to double the national debt during his term, and without any criticism from conservatives. The cons were content to get a gay marriage ban and could care less about spending while they held the White House. Reagan, like Obama will, was able to TRIPLE the national debt. Obama may even do it in one term.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
BushII was merely able to double the national debt during his term, and without any criticism from conservatives.


Factually incorrect Juan. Many fiscal conservatives like George Will were consistent critics of Republican spending. Look it up. Many conservatives said the Republican led congress (which was voted out of the majority in 2006) spent like drunken sailors. If they were drunk, Obama and the Dems have fallen overboard.
quote:
Originally posted by Chuck Norris:
Factually incorrect Juan. Many fiscal conservatives like George Will were consistent critics of Republican spending. Look it up. Many conservatives said the Republican led congress (which was voted out of the majority in 2006) spent like drunken sailors. If they were drunk, Obama and the Dems have fallen overboard.


The Reps revolted and voted Dem in 2006? That is your premise?

Reps lost Congress because of the dislike of BushII, primarily over the War on Terror debacle of torture, lack of strategic planning so bad that the reason for going to Iraq had changed 4 times by 2006.

The Dems were motivated to vote, and it was not because Reps were spending too much money.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
BushII was merely able to double the national debt during his term, and without any criticism from conservatives...


Where have you been the last 5 year? There was plenty of "conservative/right" criticism...where do you think the tea party/anti-big government crowd has come from...here's a hint...it started before the big O got in office.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
Where have you been the last 5 year? There was plenty of "conservative/right" criticism...where do you think the tea party/anti-big government crowd has come from...here's a hint...it started before the big O got in office.


Thats just not true. Rick Santelli is the instigator of the TEA party phenomenon due to some offhand remarks made in early 2009 after he realized BushII had caused a second Depression. The only campaign issue the Reps had in 2006 was invoking fear of Muslims, a trait that continues today.

FWIW, the Ground Zero mosque will be built and the second largest stockholder in FOXNews parent company is one of the primary financial backers.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:

Thats just not true. Rick Santelli is the instigator of the TEA party phenomenon due to some offhand remarks made in early 2009 after he realized BushII had caused a second Depression.


Well...this is just not true...Santelli I guess "officially" gave the name...but the true resistance to big government politics started before that...namely the Ron Paul campaign.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The Reps revolted and voted Dem in 2006? That is your premise?


No sir, that is not my premise. Republicans and conservatives are not the same. There are many of us conservatives who are independents or Democrats who were never happy with the spending of either of the Bushes or country club Republicans.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:

Thats just not true. Rick Santelli is the instigator of the TEA party phenomenon due to some offhand remarks made in early 2009 after he realized BushII had caused a second Depression.


Well...this is just not true...Santelli I guess "officially" gave the name...but the true resistance to big government politics started before that...namely the Ron Paul campaign.


maybe you should back up a little bit and change directions. FOLLOW THE MONEY backwards to where it originated. The true, but unknown financiers and founders of the TEA party are the Koch brothers. Their dad started the John Birch Society, and they are against any government, especially government oversite, and most especially government oversite of the oil industry. It is these people who have fronted the money to debunk global warming as a myth (of course it isn't) and it is these people who paid the "angry crouds" at the town hall meetings last summer, and these same two anarchist are the originators of the money for the TEA party.
I think Dick Army is one of their lobbyist.
Here's an article about them:
http://theweek.com/article/ind...-party-puppetmasters
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:

Thats just not true. Rick Santelli is the instigator of the TEA party phenomenon due to some offhand remarks made in early 2009 after he realized BushII had caused a second Depression.


Well...this is just not true...Santelli I guess "officially" gave the name...but the true resistance to big government politics started before that...namely the Ron Paul campaign.


maybe you should back up a little bit and change directions. FOLLOW THE MONEY backwards to where it originated. The true, but unknown financiers and founders of the TEA party are the Koch brothers. Their dad started the John Birch Society, and they are against any government, especially government oversite, and most especially government oversite of the oil industry. It is these people who have fronted the money to debunk global warming as a myth (of course it isn't) and it is these people who paid the "angry crouds" at the town hall meetings last summer, and these same two anarchist are the originators of the money for the TEA party.
I think Dick Army is one of their lobbyist.
Here's an article about them:
http://theweek.com/article/ind...-party-puppetmasters


For a more measured view of the Koch brothers, I suggest the Washington Examiners article at http://www.washingtonexaminer....-koch-101397489.html.

The left never mentions the Koch's are some of the largest contributors to charity. Nor, of course, the left wing sugar daddies like George Soros’s Open Society Institute and Barbra Streisand’s Streisand Foundation.

R

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×