Illegitimate war = record deficit...again

[E-Dog Night]

Didn't someone post a "Shhhh....the deficit is shrinking" thread a couple of weeks ago? Well, that was based on an article form the National Review, which is the official propaganda rag of the Republican spin factory. As it turns out, that article was a complete fabrication (following Bush's lead, I guess), and reality is a *****. All for Bush's pet war for profit.

In case you didn't know, George W. Bush ran two oil companies into bankruptcy while in the private sector. At least he's consistent! :doh:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-25-budget-deficits_x.htm

War cost drives record deficit

By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration said Tuesday it will need at least $80 billion more to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other foreign policy priorities, pushing the total military and reconstruction tab beyond $300 billion. The new spending would make this year's federal budget deficit the largest in history.

New estimates from the White House and Congress, made public two weeks before President Bush is to unveil details of his 2006 budget, alarmed Republicans and angered Democrats:

• The White House Office of Management and Budget said the $80 billion will be needed for troops, equipment, training Iraqi forces and other operations. The funds come on top of $228 billion provided by Congress for the wars and rebuilding costs. (Related story: Bush wants $80B more for wars)

Ahead of Sunday's elections in Iraq, Bush said the funding "makes clear to terrorists that our resolve is firm, and we will complete our mission."

• The Congressional Budget Office said this year's deficit will be $368 billion before war costs are added in. Last year's $412 billion deficit was the largest in history. The White House, based on its estimates, said the 2005 budget deficit will be $427 billion with the war costs included. That would be the largest ever in dollars; as a percentage of the economy, the deficit was larger in 1983 under President Reagan.

The White House request doesn't include at least $350 million in emergency aid that the administration pledged for relief efforts after last month's tsunami in southern Asia. It also omits two of Bush's domestic priorities: adding private investment accounts to Social Security and extending tax cuts, which could add several trillion dollars to the long-term deficit.

Taken together, the new estimates appear to make Bush's goal of halving the deficit by 2009 more difficult. They also put renewed pressure on the White House and Congress to address rising red ink.

"If we do nothing, our kids and grandkids will be overwhelmed by the costs of our inaction," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

"It seems that the president's solution to every problem he faces is to borrow more money," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., top Democrat on the panel.

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended Bush's economic policies. "The president has a deficit reduction plan," he said. "It's based on strong economic growth and spending restraint."

The funding request includes money to help the new Afghan government fight a thriving drug trade; $1.5 billion to build a U.S. embassy in Baghdad; assistance for the new Palestinian government; and humanitarian aid in war-torn Darfur, Sudan.

The administration said the Iraq war is costing $4.3 billion a month and Afghanistan $800 million a month.

"The real question is how the administration will be able to accomplish its many priorities — the war on terror, Social Security reform, tax reform — while ... cutting the budget deficit in half," said Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

[portisizzle]

Please compary the deficit and debt number to our GNP, please.

This is like saying I bought a new house where my mortgage payment went up $800 per month. But then not disclose that my income rose $1,200 per month.

Please be intellectually honest during this discussion.

[Brown 43]

Ibleed, 4 more years, yeah!

[E-Dog Night]

Originally posted by portisizzle

Please compary the deficit and debt number to our GNP, please.

This is like saying I bought a new house where my mortgage payment went up $800 per month. But then not disclose that my income rose $1,200 per month.

Please be intellectually honest during this discussion.

Are you suggesting that the elimination of our deficit should not be a goal of this or any administration and it doesn matter?

Ok...It's not like out GNP went up so significantly in the last 4 years compared to when W first came into power that it doesn't matter. A deficit is still a deficit. Bush has managed to go in the red over 1 trillion dollars since he came into office. And...

"It also omits two of Bush's domestic priorities: adding private investment accounts to Social Security and extending tax cuts, which could add several trillion dollars to the long-term deficit."

Alot of that is the $400 billion we've spent on Iraq. Four hundred billion dollars. On what, exactly? On a country that had no terrorists involved in 9/11. On a country that had no WMD. On a country that was no threat whatsoever to the United States.

After tripiling the deficit/GNP ratio from 1941 to 1946, it returned it to the 1940 level by 1965. It was completely paid for (as a result of WWII) in just 20 years after WWII ended. The generation that fought a war not of their making also paid for much of it.

A deficit is an undesirable situation for any conutry, regardless of the GNP or GDP. It places a burden on our country, particularly if the deficit were incurred inefficiently (by a war, for instance). The only industries that stand to make money fromt his war are the iol and defense industries, and historically these industries have not given back to the country at large, even though Bush and GOP economic policies in general would have you believe they would. In fact, oil and defense industries spend mony on themselves to make more money. New jobs will not be created and wages will not go up.

On the other hand, very large deficits and long-term debts can be justified if the programs for which this money will be used can be shown to improve some aspect of the society (economically or otherwise) so that it can be considered an investment that will pay for itself. But that's not what we have here. We have a war of our own making that serves no real purpose which we will have to pay for during the next decade, at least.

[Kilmer17]

It should certainly be A goal, but not necessarily the most important goal.

[Hooper]

I remember when the adminstration was firing people for saying this war would cost 150 billion. No way it will cost that much, they said. What's the tally now, 300 billion plus?

I'm pulling for Dubya, hope he does the best job possible, but where's the damn accountability in this administration? The sad thing is, no one seems to care.

[Cskin]

hey... psst.... wars cost money. Freedom isn't free. WWII costs alot of money in that day.... was it worth it to the greatest generation?

Tally up the war costs to this point.... even estimate into the future if you wish. Now... ask yourself would the cost be worth it if.... in the face of waning UN resolve and sanctions Hussein reconstituted his weapons program and subsequently sent a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon across our southern border in the charge of AL-Qaeda Islamofacists and they detonated this device in one of the large cities near your house.

Now apologize....

[Hooper]

Your argument would be a lot stronger if the administration had been more upfront from the get go -- but they weren't because they damn well knew this war wouldn't have happened had they even come close to letting on what they knew the war might cost.

[Mad Mike]

1st. Nice inflamitory and opinionated title. I see your trolling motor is working well.

2nd. The percentage of GDP number is considered extremely important by most economists. If you don't understand this, maybe you should stick to topics you understand better.

[E-Dog Night]

Originally posted by Cskin

hey... psst.... wars cost money. Freedom isn't free. WWII costs alot of money in that day.... was it worth it to the greatest generation?

Tally up the war costs to this point.... even estimate into the future if you wish. Now... ask yourself would the cost be worth it if.... in the face of waning UN resolve and sanctions Hussein reconstituted his weapons program and subsequently sent a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon across our southern border in the charge of AL-Qaeda Islamofacists and they detonated this device in one of the large cities near your house.

Now apologize....

This war has nothing to do with freedom! Not one single thing! Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq until we started our "Shock and Awe" campaign that has shocked and awed no one. And please...you really care about the Iraqi citizens and what Saddam was doing? I have news for you - none of that weapon nonsense you mentioned had a snowballs chance in hell of happening. And there was plenty of evidence to suggest it - it's just that those in the Bush admin who were hell bent on going to war in Iraq ignored any evidence that suggested that there really wasn't a threat in Iraq (and there was alot of it).

Comparing WWII to this fabricated military action is like comparing Mother Teresa to some millionaire who works in a soup kitchen once a year on Thanksgiving. What a joke.

Apologize? I don't think so. It's George Bush who should apologize for the death of over a thousand Americans who needlessly lost their lives in this farcical war, and for the thousands more who were injured beyond repair, and to the entire country for putting them in a financial situation that will take decades to get out of.

[Cskin]

The costs did not matter then... and they don't now. The entire world believed he had weapons of mass destruction, including possibly nuclear weapons. Shall I provide you the list of countries who's intelligence agencies believed he had WMDs?

Also... it was well known that after the Afghanistan A$$ Whupping.... Zarqawi fled to Baghdad for medical attention. Now you have an Al-Qaeda operative, all of which vow to kill as many Americans as possible, getting medical attention in a country most of the world believes has WMDs. Do you not see the potential here....that Hussein might put an arm around Zarqawi and say... "hey... I've got these... sneak them over to the USA and kick some a$$ on their turf"

We just couldn't allow that to happen... and those of you who believe we should have sat on our hands and wished the situation go away like Kennedy... Kerry... and the rest of bleeding heart.. blame america... appease at all cost liberals... would be the first people standing and shouting "why did it come to this... why didn't we take him out then"? :doh:

If we have learned anything... we've learned that appeasement does nothing against religious fanaticism. They see it as weakness. What they do understand is a boot in the teeth and a bullet through their brains. I'd rather that happen over there.... than over here.

[SnyderShrugged]

Another sad and pathetic attempt to paint our scenario as much, much worse than it truly is.

For the record, I too am tired of paying for Iraq and I hope the elections go well enough to start the transformation to democracy off on the right foot. It's time for Iraqi's to stand up to the terrorists and fight for their own freedom along side of us.

I am also sick to death of certain people hoping for Us to fail and to paint an inaccurate picture, simply because they want Bush to look bad. It has to be very difficult to exalt in bad news.

Lastly, Sorry to break the news to all, but our deficit is in line with every other wartime economy that we have ever had. We are much more efficient and productive than we were in those past times as well.

Add it all up...Deficit is high, but not disproportionate to simmilar periods of strife. It's not an illegitimate war just because you say it is..... Housing ownership and new house buils are at all time highs!....interest rates are very low, still.... Economic growth is strong, unemployment is low, and we are a successful nation!!! Be proud of that and stop crying based on partisanship!

We won't see the dividends to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts for years. Don't expect to. Also, don't say that we won't ever see those dividends because it simply isnt known yet!

Have faith in our nation and the success that it ALWAYS has in the end. We are the greatest, most economically advanced, philanthropic, generous nation in the world!

[Sarge]

Originally posted by IbleedBurgundyNGold

This war has nothing to do with freedom! Not one single thing! Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq until we started our "Shock and Awe" campaign that has shocked and awed no one. And please...you really care about the Iraqi citizens and what Saddam was doing? I have news for you - none of that weapon nonsense you mentioned had a snowballs chance in hell of happening. And there was plenty of evidence to suggest it - it's just that those in the Bush admin who were hell bent on going to war in Iraq ignored any evidence that suggested that there really wasn't a threat in Iraq (and there was alot of it).

Comparing WWII to this fabricated military action is like comparing Mother Teresa to some millionaire who works in a soup kitchen once a year on Thanksgiving. What a joke.

Apologize? I don't think so. It's George Bush who should apologize for the death of over a thousand Americans who needlessly lost their lives in this farcical war, and for the thousands more who were injured beyond repair, and to the entire country for putting them in a financial situation that will take decades to get out of.

So tell me again, at the very least, where the WMD stuff we gave him went. No one here seems to be able to do that.

Oh, and make no mistake. This war could be over tomorrow if we so desired.

[E-Dog Night]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

1st. Nice inflamitory and opinionated title. I see your trolling motor is working well.

2nd. The percentage of GDP number is considered extremely important by most economists. If you don't understand this, maybe you should stick to topics you understand better.

Call it trolling if that makes you feel better. If you don't like the title then don't open the thread.

And if you read my second post, you'll see that I do have an understanding of the deficit/GNP ratio. But don't let the truth get in the way of your opinions.

And who are thses "most economists" that you talk about? I'd love to see you back up your statement that at least 50.1% of all the economists in the world think that a $427 billion deficit is "extremely unimportant".

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Hooper

Your argument would be a lot stronger if the administration had been more upfront from the get go -- but they weren't because they damn well knew this war wouldn't have happened had they even come close to letting on what they knew the war might cost.

Let's see. National security vs deficit.... I'll take national security for 2 trillion Alex.

You want to tally costs? Consider the cost of 9/11. Then consider that the terrorists want to do far worse and had lots of contacts with Saddam, then read the Duelfer report that concludes he was trying to use the oil for food program to lift sanctions, support terrorism, and rebuild his WMD programs. Was the danger imminent or long term? WHO F"ING CARES?!!! It was a danger that was not acceptable to anyone who values american lives more than a perfectly balanced budget.

[Hooper]

Well, we're not going to agree on a lot of stuff and that's fine, but speaking of apologies, I think we can all agree that Lawrence Lindsey deserves one.

-- White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey caused a stir when he put the price tag at between 100 and 200 billion at best. The administration dismissed the figure, and Lindsey was soon fired.

[Cskin]

Good posts Mad....

Comparing WWII to this fabricated military action is like comparing Mother Teresa to some millionaire who works in a soup kitchen once a year on Thanksgiving. What a joke.

You're shortsightedness is scary. The two compare because they are both large military operations. They compare because one was the fight against the spread of facism (Nazis) and the other a spread of islamofacism (Radical Islam Jihadists who have vowed to kill all westerners and spread Islam throughout the world). They compare, if you're capable of comprehending, because the same mechanism started the progression towards war in both events. We entered WWII after being attacked by Germany's ally Japan at Pearl Harbor... with the loss of 2800 lives.... and we entered this war because we were attacked on 9-11 (You still remember those 2800 lives lost don't you) by islamofacists and they began seeking WMDs to escalate the war and conveniently cozied up to a dictator believed to possess those weapons. This same country, and dictator, who had a similar agenda to threaten the US in retaliation for his bitter defeat in the first Gulf War and the continued sanctions that frustrated his attempts to dominate the Middle East.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Sarge

So tell me again, at the very least, where the WMD stuff we gave him went. No one here seems to be able to do that.

Oh, and make no mistake. This war could be over tomorrow if we so desired.

Anyone? ANyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Hooper

Well, we're not going to agree on a lot of stuff and that's fine, but speaking of apologies, I think we can all agree that Lawrence Lindsey deserves one.

-- White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey caused a stir when he put the price tag at between 100 and 200 billion at best. The administration dismissed the figure, and Lindsey was soon fired.

He quit in 2002? Doesnt look like he was fired. I guess you can now claim the old "forced to quit" line, but we all know better.

http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPressReleases.nsf/0/9344d2f874d38b2d86256c87005f1864?OpenDocument

Strange, he resigned sometime just prior to Dec. 2002, but we didnt invade Iraq until March of 03? hmmmmm doesnt really fit with your statements, does it?

March 19, 2003- Invasion of Iraq begins when the United States launches Operation Iraqi Freedom. Called a “decapitation attack,” the initial air strike of the war targets Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi leaders in Baghdad , with unclear results.

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by Sarge

So tell me again, at the very least, where the WMD stuff we gave him went. No one here seems to be able to do that.

Oh, and make no mistake. This war could be over tomorrow if we so desired.

What are you talking about? Iraqi war supporters do it daily. They're buried in Syria OF COURSE. The Bush administration is just ridiculously inept compared to the brilliance displayed on this messageboard. I can't blame them for their incompetence.

[Hooper]

Please. Do a google search on Lawrence Lindsey -- the man was fired.

This is from a Robert Novak column. We all know how much he hates Bush.

"A footnote: Lawrence Lindsey, fired as national economic adviser at the same time O'Neill was let go, has remained a Bush loyalist. His accurate public prediction of the Iraq war's cost was one of the reasons for Lindsey's dismissal, but he has resisted the temptation to say I-told-you-so."

[Sarge]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

What are you talking about? Iraqi war supporters do it daily. They're buried in Syria OF COURSE. The Bush administration is just ridiculously inept compared to the brilliance displayed on this messageboard. I can't blame them for their incompetence.

You didn't answer the question

[E-Dog Night]

Originally posted by Cskin

Good posts Mad....

You're shortsightedness is scary. The two compare because they are both large military operations. They compare because one was the fight against the spread of facism (Nazis) and the other a spread of islamofacism (Radical Islam Jihadists who have vowed to kill all westerners and spread Islam throughout the world). They compare, if you're capable of comprehending, because the same mechanism started the progression towards war in both events. We entered WWII after being attacked by Germany's ally Japan at Pearl Harbor... with the loss of 2800 lives.... and we entered this war because we were attacked on 9-11 (You still remember those 2800 lives lost don't you) by islamofacists and they began seeking WMDs to escalate the war and conveniently cozied up to a dictator believed to possess those weapons. This same country, and dictator, who had a similar agenda to threaten the US in retaliation for his bitter defeat in the first Gulf War and the continued sanctions that frustrated his attempts to dominate the Middle East.

I just don't buy you argument, and neither does a panel set up to find out if what you claim was true. Speaking of things that you might remember...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/"9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida"

These headlines were splattered on every paper in the country this past June. So please explain how a war in Iraq is the logical answer to a terrorist attack perpetrated by mostly Saudis and no Iraqis.

And the difference between WWII and this war is that we started this war with a country that has not made a attack on us. The fact that I have to explain that to you is what really is scary.

[seamus]

The war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are not the same thing. Bush's strategy was to get the world to believe that they were the same thing so he could have support for the invasion. If Bush's goal was to really go after terrorism he would have invaded Saudi Arabia or Syria.

[Kilmer17]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?