1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Obstructionist Republicans

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Feb 16, 2009.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
  2. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Little Acorn,
    On this forum it is generally required for the OP to make some sort personal remarks in regards to the topic you want to discuss, otherwise the cartoon you posted is SPAM.

    I am going to leave this thread opened for now, but in the future, for copyright and discussion purposes it is required you post something of your opinion relevant to the topic, otherwise it will be closed and in some cases infractions given.
    While this doesnt warrant that sort of action, please in the future do so. Happy posting!
     
  3. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    The cartoon spoke 10,000 words. It really does feel like egg head and company is shoving a bitter pill down our throats
     
  4. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,891
    Likes Received:
    485
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    That elephant can most likely be convinced to take that pill, like it, and probably say it was small and sugar coated:

    Here's how:

    [​IMG]
     
  5. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I certainly hope you are not insinuating that the cost of Iraq and the cost of bailouts/stimulus packages are anywhere near similar.
     
  6. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,891
    Likes Received:
    485
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Oh, no, nowhere near similar.

    Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion

    Before you attack the above as "left wing", the real left wing is estimating triple that figure.

    Cost of bailout? Unknown, but likely much more than its proponents claim.
    Cost of rebuilding Iraq? Unknown, but likely much more than its proponents claim.

    No, of course, there is no similarity at all.
     
  7. Depeche Toad

    Depeche Toad New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm missing something. When did two consecutive Democrat controlled Congresses in 2007 and 2008 vote to defund the war in Iraq?
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Ok, I won't attack anything as "left wing."

    What I will say is that so far total bailouts, stimulus packages, and government promises will total over $10 trillion ($7 trillion WSJ figure, plus this stimulus, plus Geithner's new plan, plus housing bailout, etc etc) should Geithner's plan go through. (This is a conservative estimate as well)

    So no... $1 trillion with potential for more vs $10 trillion with potential for more is not similar...

    Anyway, I think it is safe to assume that we would still be spending a lot of money abroad even if we never invaded Iraq, but I hardly think we would be bailing banks left and right in the course of normal spending operations.
     
  9. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,891
    Likes Received:
    485
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    That $790 billion package is bad enough, especially added to the trillion or so cost of Iraq, without using sky is falling math to make it appear to be ten times as much as it really is.
     
  10. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes it is possible for the Iraq war to reach $1 Trillion. It's got quite a ways to go though.

    Currently, as we speak the total funding for the entire "War on Terror" is $636 Billion over the past 6 years. The current total budget for GWOT for 2009 is $198 Billion. So by 2011 it could be $1 Trillion. But that is for the entire GWOT, not Iraq.

    The CBO (under democrat control) has stated that only $480 Billion have been spent on specifically Iraq. Roughly $96 Billion a year. In order to reach $1 Trillion, it will take about six years, but I wager we will have pulled out by then.

    Only if you add in the cost of all anti-terrorism activities, and Afghanistan, do you reach a possible $1 Trillion mark. Otherwise, it isn't likely the Iraq will even come close.

    Now let's compare...
    GWOT (all operations) $636 Billion over 6 years.
    Iraq (including reconstruction) $480 Billion over six years.
    Current GWOT Budget (including all anti-terror support) $189 Billion as of 2009.

    Obama Stimulus (political payoff) $787 Billion over ONE year.

    Now which do you think represents a greater economic danger?
    Which would you suggest is reckless overspending?
     
  11. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,891
    Likes Received:
    485
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    It does appear, from your figures, that the stealfromus... I mean stimulus package is the worst of the two, in economic terms at least. Did you take into account the cost of medical care and rehab of war vets? Just wondering.

    And, the tax cut and borrow package that is supposed to jump start the stalled economy is to be spent over a period of time, too, isn't it? Are the feds really going to dump the whole 790 billion this month?
     
  12. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Sure this is bad, but it ignores the other government bailouts and promises (and future plans) that amount to an additional $9 trillion. (give or take)
     
  13. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    without going into what numbers are used,,,,

    Money spent on Iraq....is a money hole, nothing comes back from it,

    money spent in US on stimulus package...at least part of it comes back , the more it works the more comes back into the system...its not a empty hole the money is thrown into. The true cost of the stimulus cant really be known without knowing its actual effect.
     
  14. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I think a semi-stable friendly Iraq that can potentially provide bases, support, and influence around the region is something that comes back. Maybe you cannot put a monetary figure on it, but it makes it no less important.

    I think the same is said about wars.

    On the stimulus note however, I cannot think of any time ever when one worked the way it was intended. Can you?
     
  15. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    While I dont discount what a stable and supportive Iraq could have become, there is a major difference in building thier infastructure and building our own capacity in the same regards. I would much rather have the money spent in America than there.
    Well, as intended is a tough sell. But a few examples I will point out.
    One being of course the new deal. The new Deal provided two things. It put Americans to work in worthwhile manners when needed, immediatly.
    But it also put America in a postion in terms of infrastructure to be able to respond to the military mobilization needed in WWII. Without the roads and airfields, and especially the electricial generation abilities generated through these efforts, the US would have been greatly behind when it came to building tanks and planes, and all the other military necessities for the effort.

    Another that I will mention, that was often lampooned at the time was the interstate highway creation under Eisenhower. It cost a lot of money at the time, and it came with plenty of requirements for those federal dollars. But ultimately it greatly improved the economy by increasing the capacity of the highways for goods and services to travel and ultimately generate GDP.
     
Loading...

Share This Page