Listening to the Liberal media in this nation

this information would have never got out. The government has done a great job of pulling it over the American people's eye. Everyday I hear people telling me that the Iraq war cost more than Obama's stimulus plan. I have showed them facts but they won't listen. They refer me to bias sites like resistwar.com or something like that. Here is more proof of the incompetence of our loser and chief, as well as all of the congress and the senate.

Throw them out on their butts this November, and lets get Obama out in 2012. It is time to get some integrity back into government.

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war


[edit on 24-8-2010 by russ212]




Mod Edit: URL correction - Jak

[edit on 24/8/10 by JAK]

I get a 404 not found error. Check your link?

reply to post by Asktheanimals


For some reason I can't get this stupid link to work. As an ATS member I say it is a government conspiracy.

Here is the text. A working link can be found on drudgereport.com. I am sorry for the broken link.

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/23/10 11:32 AM EDT
Expect to hear a lot about how much the Iraq war cost in the days ahead from Democrats worried about voter wrath against their unprecedented spending excesses.
The meme is simple: The economy is in a shambles because of Bush's economic policies and his war in Iraq. As American Thinker's Randall Hoven points out, that's the message being peddled by lefties as diverse as former Clinton political strategist James Carville, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and The Nation's Washington editor, Christopher Hayes.
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.)
Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq. For more from Hoven, go here.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war



Mod edit: External source quote tags added, source link url format correction - Jak

[edit on 24/8/10 by JAK]

Where did these numbers come from? I mean we know we had spent over 845 billion just for Iraq by 2008. And the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the war at $2.4 trillion. I have no idea how much bigger that number gets when you add in Afganistan. And we will not see a cent of that back. Obamas stimulis plan cost 784 billion about as much as Bush's Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that was the 700 billion bail outs. Now in both those cases chunks of that money will make it back into federal coffers over the years. And also in both those cases parts of it is not acual money spent but tax cuts. However even the both of the combined will not equal what the war in Iraq will cost us.

I really wish we had a liberal media in this country. We only have a right central media who focuses on entertainment news and a far right media which focuses on fantasy.

Sadly, to get actual news we have to go to foreign news sources like the BBC.

reply to post by Kaploink


You mean the British Brainwashing Corporation?

Originally posted by russ212
this information would have never got out. The government has done a great job of pulling it over the American people's eye. Everyday I hear people telling me that the Iraq war cost more than Obama's stimulus plan. I have showed them facts but they won't listen. They refer me to bias sites like resistwar.com or something like that. Here is more proof of the incompetence of our loser and chief, as well as all of the congress and the senate.

Throw them out on their butts this November, and lets get Obama out in 2012. It is time to get some integrity back into government.

www.washingtonexaminer.com... 02919.html

[edit on 24-8-2010 by russ212]

Let us never forget that under Reagan, 41, and 43 we have been under incresing debt and have more people turned against us by these 3 then in any other Presidency combined. 43 put more on the card then the previous like 10 Presidents combined. 43 teied to destroy our nation's integrity. Obama is trying to restore it. 43's policies cost us at least 75 - 125 Million jobs, no other Pres. in American history has ever accomplished that.

When a liberal tries to do the right thing it's somehow wrong, but when a Neo Nazi does it it's ok? My. my how the tide has turned. The GOP are totally out of power for the first time since the 1970's and they cannot take it and are acting like spoiled little kids playing little kid games in order to remain in power. The entire parties mandate has been to stop the progress of America cold. They do not want Americans to have decent paying jobs because thier masters do not want America to compete on any level.

Posted by me in another thread but am posting it here seeing how it has relevance :

Thanks to you hero Dubya we were under a dictatorship from Sept 01 - Jan 09 and no one said yap over it as each and everyone who he had under his spell said not a peep but have the audacity to try and complain now that you know the people are actually being taken care of now. My, my, how vicious have we gotten? Wow, when did The Dems have the time to kill the nation's economy, get us involved with 2 wars, get us even more hated around the world? Don't even get me started about the Barbie doll!

This is also the same group of people who tried to put up an airheaded ditz as tthier VP nominee. Anyone with that low of a proficency level really does not need to be making important desicions.

The old geezer is a moron as well.

What party is the one proposing the repealment of the 14th Amendment and wants to repeal the 13th Amendment? That's right, the Tea Bagger GOP!!!

(I am not trolling just combating lies with truth, if mods feel this is a strike pm me before acting please, D1!)

[edit on 24-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

reply to post by russ212


What liberal media do you have?

I see that you use the old thickest tar brush to initiate this thread. We who are not oriented to the neo-con perspective do not find much solace in the world of media. We find enormous amounts of slanted, biased and uninformative news which appears to be generated by corporate policy makers.

A liberal media would be attacking ALL of the civil right abridgments, wealth distribution, trade policies and union bashing.

Originally posted by Kaploink
I really wish we had a liberal media in this country. We only have a right central media who focuses on entertainment news and a far right media which focuses on fantasy.

Sadly, to get actual news we have to go to foreign news sources like the BBC.

Oh thank you mate, it's nice to get a little love on ATS for the BBC, it's a rare thing here!

As for the OP, yes you are technically right that the bailout has cost more than the war in Iraq. Here's a Washington Post article from 2008 putting the price of the war at over $3 trillion dollars:
The War In Iraq Will Cost Over $3 Trillion

And here is an infographic from the New York Times showing the full funding commitments for the bailout totaling $12.4 trillion:
The Cost Of The Bailout $12.4 Trillion

However this also negates the OP in that it is the so-called "Liberal Media" in the US breaking down the numbers and showing them to the American people.

Of note however it should be stated that the bailout plan was started under President W. Bush and honestly I am personally glad to see such a thing. Namely that the US government is still willing to spend more money on their own country than on a blatantly illegal war. At least they still have some measure of priorities regardless of how much money actually gets thrown around.

Butter won over guns this time, as it always should.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Psst, dont tell them about those bailouts having to be repaid though that will squash a lot of the conservative agenda to make it look like everything they did is Obamas fault

This provision was a big factor in the eventual passage the EESA. It gives the taxpayer the opportunity to “be repaid.” The recoupment provision requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit a report on TARP’s financial status to Congress five years after its enactment. If TARP has not been able to recoup its outlays through the sale of the assets, the Act requires the President to submit a plan to Congress to recoup the losses from the financial industry. Theoretically, this prevents TARP from adding to the national debt. The use of the term “financial industry” in the provision leaves open the possibility that such a plan would involve the entire financial sector rather than only those institutions that availed themselves of TARP.

www.uiowa.edu...

oops

[edit on 8/24/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


Haha, that's right I forgot about that part! On top of that it's not been the failure that the right-wing would like to think it has been. General Motors for one filed to become a publicly traded company again this fall.

I've heard lots of stories from friends back in Wisconsin that a lot of the money there has been used on roads and bridges and the like. I remember when I was last there in the spring seeing large "American Recovery & Reinvestment" signs on a lot of roadwork projects.

Currently it seems that confidence has been the biggest problem in the American economy. Fewer people are buying which has lead businesses to stockpile their cash in case the situation does not improve.

Remember, the individual is far more important than government action in economic recovery!