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:
I certainly hope you are not insinuating that the cost of Iraq and the cost of bailouts/stimulus packages are anywhere near similar.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.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 so less important.
Well, as intended is a tough sell. But a few examples I will point out.On the stimulus note however, I cannot think of any time ever when one worked the way it was intended. Can you?