1.9 Trillion dollars and counting....

[cover2]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113/ap_on_go_co/war_costs

[Firetxmi]

But the funding for the Water bill is too high!

[shocker1]

But the funding for the Water bill is too high!
I tell you what, that really got some people around here upset including myself. This is TVA country and in serious water trouble to the South of here. Bad move or a set up to make Congress look like the heroes of the day.

Things are about to get tight IMO with the slowing economy, lower tax revenues, sick dollar all spells serious trouble.

[Givati575]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113/ap_on_go_co/war_costs

i don't understand the $20,000 thing for a family of four.........what does that mean?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The report, from the committee's Democratic majority, was not vetted with Republican members. Democratic leaders in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., seized on the report to criticize Bush's war strategy.


Well I won't deny that this (and every) war is expensive - but please, that "report" has all the credibility I've come to expect from the most bipartisan Congress in history. They took an Excel sheet, put every conceivable cost in one column, including emotional pain and suffering, then took the other column with all the plusses (high paying defense jobs, manufacturers, contractors, suppliers, taxes realized on all the above etc.), and hit the delete button.

I wish my boss would let me do budgeting that way, I could justify buying that Chrysler 300 SRT8 that I need for delivering parts.

[LMAV]

Things are about to get tight IMO with the slowing economy, lower tax revenues, sick dollar all spells serious trouble.

Have you always believed this through the 7 years we've been hearing it, or are you just now coming to that conclusion?

[shocker1]

Have you always believed this through the 7 years we've been hearing it, or are you just now coming to that conclusion?
Absolutly, once Bush started the record deficit spending, the Fed w/Godspan fudging up rates, making a "housing bubble" that has exploded. There are four houses in foreclosure on my street much less everywhere else around. Face it pal Bush made a huge mess, him and all his buddies. I supported him too but I saw this coming before 2004, what choice did I have? I will also point out his cutting of FTA funding for alternative fuel mass transit in 2000. Thus putting me out of work at that time.

Do you want to know why I am doing so well?(Besides the money fiasco last month with a dealer) My income is connected to the Buy here Pay here automotive sales. When it is booming it means people have no credit to buy a car with a rate under 19%, mostly 29%. So the economy could tank or boom and I would still have plenty of work. Not so for most.

[LMAV]

Do you want to know why I am doing so well?(Besides the money fiasco last month with a dealer) My income is connected to the Buy here Pay here automotive sales. When it is booming it means people have no credit to buy a car with a rate under 19%, mostly 29%. So the economy could tank or boom and I would still have plenty of work. Not so for most.

Yes yes, those mystery "others". You know, I've never come acorss one of these people.


I'm just getting sick of these chicken littles constantly predicting doom and gloom in the economy, only to constantly be wrong and retain their credibility.


Face it pal Bush made a huge mess, him and all his buddies.:roll:

Must you be reminded of the war? You know, it has a little do with with all the spending?

Who are his "buddies"? I'm picturing a dark cabal of scurvy sea dogs, sitting over a candle lit map of the United States as they plot all the ways to screw the country.

[shocker1]

What ever man, ignore the numbers if you want. By his buddies I mean the heads of the Washington think tanks, his Admin. Your defense of him is nothing but reflexive. He did not fight for small business like he said he did. Yes I do know these people, I am one, the members of the local Chamber are and my business customers. Our dollar sinking below the Canadian dollar should perk up your ears. We are still the world currency but that will not last unless money traders can make a return on the dollar.

Fort Oglethorpe does not need APC's, ARs in every patrol car, dragon skin body armor in every trunk. This is not New York. Now multiply that by the thousands of little towns like mine. Or the millions spent to subsidize seat belt check points under click it or ticket. Now multiply that by the thousands of feel good programs that do nothing. "Oh look a road block, I don't need to wear my seat belt through that!" So actually the war in Iraq is but a small slice and what percentage of that was handed out like candy with no idea were it went?

[Cralis]

Slow economies are good - the expansion lasts longer. With a slower economy there is a tendency to keep wages from rising sharply and that lets the expansion last. But the economy isn't growing as slowly as thought - the predicted growth was something like 70,000 jobs and more than 115,000 jobs were created, so it is actually growing faster then thought six months ago.

The housing bubble is a result of two things: the Fed allowing all these companies to give variable rate loans to people who shouldn't qualify, and second, the trend for the average american to carry a high loan balance and very little reserve (savings). The Fed is increasing the rate, as it should, to keep the economic growth slow and provide for room to drop the rate when a recession finally does come. This is something that has been occuring since the 60's and is nothing new.

Lower tax revenues are good. A lower tax means a higher Keynesian multiplier, so all business investment and government spending boosts our aggregate demand at a higher multiplied effect. With higher taxes the multiplier would be smaller, and the economic growth would be even slower.

1.9 Trillion dollars? Pfft. Its what? Not even .065% of our RGDP? Compared to other wars in our history that is amazing: the exception being the Vietnam war. When we gain another quick boost in economic growth the percentage will drop even further.

Trade deficit! Oh no! Ours has dropped by 56 billion over the last six months, and thanks to China's wonderful quality control, is expected to drop further. In fact, trade deficits have dropped all across the globe, and trade surpluses have universally shrunk (especially China's surplus).

As for the dollar getting weaker: there are a number of factors at work here, not the least being that it may be part of the cyclical business cycle. It has not really dropped enough to be much of a worry. If it keeps dropping then I'll start worrying about it.

As for "feel good programs", I would suggest you look to the secular-progressive and democratic camps. They really specialize in those things!

[BugHunt]

Welcome to the spooky world of the republicans where -

- massive war spending = good
- loss of confidence in the dollar = good
- housing crisis = not of note
- american regarded with suspicion by allies = not of note


Of course i cant help thinking if it happened under another party - this would all be EXTREMELY bad :roll:

[Nano]

I very much hope Cralis is not someone's financial adviser. Cralis you generate a sort of trust/confidence in me that well ain't pretty. Pedobear has greater trust with a 10year old than you with someone's money.

[RxOnco]

"Massive war spending"-It's a war...it's not cheap...so I guess you either want to just bail out or cut corners on spending.

"Loss of confidence in the dollar"-I don't know where you're finding anyone saying that it's a good thing, but I have confidence that it will recover. It always does.

"Housing crisis"-Not of note...because it's not a "crisis." There's still plenty of people buying houses. The fact that those who took out adjustable rate loans when they shouldn't have are now in a position where they can no longer afford them...that's no crisis...that's piss poor investment.

"America regarded with 'suspicion' by its allies"-What allies?...what suspicion?

[LMAV]

Welcome to the spooky world of the republicans where -

- massive war spending = good
- loss of confidence in the dollar = good
- housing crisis = not of note
- american regarded with suspicion by allies = not of note




- massive war spending= Yes, we beleive we should spend whatever it takes to win and support the troops. I thought the dems wanted our troops to have the best equipment?

- loss of confidence in the dollar = I didn't say it was good, but economics isn't static and not all dips are cause for hysteria.

- housing crisis= A crisis huh? Maybe if you guys didn't froth at the mouth about every little thing there might be room for it, but I just don't see this as a wide spread problem. My personal views shouldn't be extended to all republicans either.


- american regarded with suspicion by allies= Which allies?

France: Elected Pro-US president who is very much in love with the US.
Canada: Elects pro-US government.
Britain: Brown has been outspoken about his dedication to the US.
Australia: Pro-US government

[RxOnco]

I'm going to guess that there won't be much of a response to the above. It's typical...kind of like a liberal talking point grenade.
Just spew a bunch of Air America one-liners...pull the pin...and run.

[Nano]

I think the war spending has done our economy some real good. The point and problem is not the spending, but the way people went about spending it with insufficient checks. The war spending has helped us get out of the slump after 9/11, but one can always argue the wisdom in how it has been spent. If the spending had been better managed a whole lot more economic benefits could have been had, but as is human nature corruption gets the better of our elected leaders. That goes for both sides who are in on it.

[JKD]

Even setting war spending aside Dubya is anything but a fiscal conservative.



Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007



WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.

“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.

The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.

“He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.”

Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors.

When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.

That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency. By these standards, Ronald Reagan was a tightwad; discretionary spending grew by only 1.9 percent a year on his watch.

Discretionary spending went up in Bush's first term by 48.5 percent, not adjusted for inflation, more than twice as much as Bill Clinton did (21.6 percent) in two full terms, Slivinski reports.

Defense spending is the big driver — but hardly the only one.

Under Bush it's grown on average by 5.7 percent a year. Under LBJ — who had a war to fund, too — it rose by 4.9 percent a year. Both numbers are adjusted for inflation.

Including costs for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense spending under Bush has gone up 86 percent since 2001, according to Chris Hellman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Current annual defense spending — not counting war costs — is 25 percent above the height of the Reagan-era buildup, Hellman said.

Homeland security spending also has soared, to about $31 billion last year, triple the pre-9/11 number.

But Bush's super-spending is about far more than defense and homeland security.

Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, points to education spending. Adjusted for inflation, it's up 18 percent annually since 2001, thanks largely to Bush’s No Child Left Behind act.

The 2002 farm bill, he said, caused agriculture spending to double its 1990s levels.

Then there was the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit — the biggest single expansion in the program’s history — whose 10-year costs are estimated at more than $700 billion.

And the 2005 highway bill, which included thousands of “earmarks,” or special local projects stuck into the legislation by individual lawmakers without review, cost $295 billion.

“He has presided over massive increases in almost every category … a dramatic change of pace from most previous presidents,” said Slivinski.

The White House counters by noting that Bush took office as the country was heading into a recession, then reeled from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“This president had to overcome some things that required additional spending,” said Sean Kevelighan, a White House budget office spokesman.

Bush does have other backers.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative research group, blamed a ravenous Congress that was eager to show constituents how generous it could be. (Republicans ran that Congress until January. Bush never vetoed a single GOP spending bill.)

The White House points out that, nearly four years ago, Bush vowed to cut the deficit in half by 2009, and he's well on his way to achieving that goal. The fiscal 2004 deficit was a record $412.7 billion; the 2007 figure plunged to $163 billion.

But the deficit drop may be fleeting, experts say, since lawmakers are likely to extend many of Bush’s tax cuts, which expire by the end of 2010, and the imminent retirement of the baby boom generation will send Medicare and Social Security costs soaring in the years ahead.

Now, near the end of the seventh year of his presidency, Bush is positioning himself as a tough fiscal conservative.

He says Congress is proposing to spend $22 billion more in fiscal 2008 than the $933 billion he requested for discretionary programs — and that the $22 billion extra would swell over five years to $205 billion.

Eventually, Bush said, “they’re going to have to raise taxes to pay for it.”

And so, the president told an Arkansas audience earlier this month, people should brace for “what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington.

“The Congress gets to propose and, if it doesn’t meet needs as far as I’m concerned, I get to veto,” he said. “And that’s precisely what I intend to do.”

Bush is getting tough on fiscal policy — after running up a record as the most profligate spender in at least 40 years.

“The spending did happen,” said Keating, “and a lot of it shouldn’t have happened.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html

....and yeah the board turns the word p r o f l i g a t e into a laughing smiley face thing

[RxOnco]

I agree in the sense that whenever it comes to government spending of any sort, you'll have mis-management and corruption. It's all part of the business. However, when it comes to war spending; it's just nonsense to place blame on the Republicans or G.W.'s administration solely because they're in office at the time. The Dems have been in control of Congress for quite some time now and I've yet to see any change in spending. Why? Because it's a war and war costs money.

[RxOnco]

Even setting war spending aside Dubya is anything but a fiscal conservative.
....and yeah the board turns the word p r o f l i g a t e into a laughing smiley face thing

That's the real reason why the Dems took control of Congress. The Republican base were not at all happy with the spending practices. I don't think you'll find too many true conservatives who will place Dubya and conservative in the same sentence.

As for the laughing smiley face thing...you might try prolific.

[LMAV]

Even setting war spending aside Dubya is anything but a fiscal conservative.


."....and to the American people I must apologize. While it's true our soldiers could have better equipment and an endless supply of ammo, I'm a fiscal conservative which means I cant spend the money. The war is hereby, lost." -GWB

[Stephen~K^]

I tell you what, that really got some people around here upset including myself. This is TVA country and in serious water trouble to the South of here. Bad move or a set up to make Congress look like the heroes of the day.

Things are about to get tight IMO with the slowing economy, lower tax revenues, sick dollar all spells serious trouble.

Go into "safe mode", ASAP...

[Nano]

Democrats simply started shifting more of the spending to their own supporters. It of course makes sense to blame those who are in charge of the government at the time given that they are who are mismanaging it. One can't possibly blame anyone else who had nothing to do with it. I am not for Republican bashing or Democratic bashing on the corruption issue both are guilty based upon their respective votes. It it only prudent to hold parties accountable for what their members do, otherwise we end up with an uncontrollable monster. There are very few things that can make a country dysfunctional and corruption is one of them. The more we keep it at bay and not endorse it as a norm the better our society will be at large.

[Stephen~K^]

Democrats simply started shifting more of the spending to their own supporters. It of course makes sense to blame those who are in charge of the government at the time given that they are who are mismanaging it. One can't possibly blame anyone else who had nothing to do with it. I am not for Republican bashing or Democratic bashing on the corruption issue both are guilty based upon their respective votes. It it only prudent to hold parties accountable for what their members do, otherwise we end up with an uncontrollable monster. There are very few things that can make a country dysfunctional and corruption is one of them. The more we keep it at bay and not endorse it as a norm the better our society will be at large.

Wisdom appears...

[JKD]

."....and to the American people I must apologize. While it's true our soldiers could have better equipment and an endless supply of ammo, I'm a fiscal conservative which means I cant spend the money. The war is hereby, lost." -GWB
Do me a favor and reread my post with your reading comprehension switched into the "on" position. I said setting war spending aside. As in other types of spending.

Bush and his republican congress for six years were like a teenage girl going crazy at the mall with her dad's credit card.

[Rictor]

Surprise, surprise. War is the biggest, most wasteful, most corrupt, most invasive government program out there. And somehow most of the right-wing seems to adore it, yet cry bloody murder when sick kids come looking for some federal funds.

[NuclearHead]

Just another Democrat partisan report. Next!

[Cralis]

Haha I love how he doesn't tell me whats wrong with what I'm saying, but rather attacks me as a person. NEXT!

Anyway, I think the most disturbing trend right now is the fact that the cost of purchasing and the cost of living in general is rising without a corresponding increase in wages. If both were rising we could combat it with anti-inflation strategies, however, firms are keeping the wages down while simultaneously raising their profits at our expense.

For the past ten years there has been an increase in the CPI without a corresponding increase in the index for producers (cost to do business). This means that we are paying them more every year, but the firms do not have an increase in costs, therefore making more profit. If they would keep prices low, or reduce them (as happened a little in the '90s when rapid technological growth caused the cost per unit of most industries to drop), then we could sustain the spending/saving level (which is currently a negative number - the average American is spending more than he earns and not saving any money) for a longer period of time without a danger of some form of crash or collapse.

Not saying it will happen soon, or even at all, but if it does its going to go down like a house of cards. The housing bubble is only the beginning of this problem, and I suspect that there is going to be a major crash at some point as income falls farther behind what firms are charging us.

Do I think this is a "republican" or "democratic" problem? No, actually I think its a social problem because we allow those firms to get away with this crap.

[Zoomie]

Surprise, surprise. War is the biggest, most wasteful, most corrupt, most invasive government program out there. And somehow most of the right-wing seems to adore it, yet cry bloody murder when sick kids come looking for some federal funds.
roflGimme a break. Lemme know when kids actually do that with out the prodding of a politician.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Surprise, surprise. War is the biggest, most wasteful, most corrupt, most invasive government program out there. And somehow most of the right-wing seems to adore it, yet cry bloody murder when sick kids come looking for some federal funds.

Bwhahaha oh lordy (dabbing tear of laughter from eye). Why can't we conduct a discussion using the real world as our template, and not falling back into some farcical cartoon world populated by Republicans who look like the Monopoly Man? The fact is that the nation voted to launch a war - and it seems to me that we are then responsible to prosecute and fund that war through the victory phase. We do still launch wars with the intention of winning them, and achieving our stated objectives, right? Or are we content to just blow things up and get people killed for effect?

Hey ,we're not an endless money bucket - obviously we can't fund everything under the sun. I'd love to fund comprehensive healthcare for crippled orphans. I'd love to fund healthcare for my own family. But I can provide for my own healthcare - I can't beat the insurgents in Iraq...so given the choice, I'd choose to pay my government to do it. Now I'm off to go pitchfork more infants into the wood-chipper.

[Firetxmi]

I'm going to guess that there won't be much of a response to the above. It's typical...kind of like a liberal talking point grenade.
Just spew a bunch of Air America one-liners...pull the pin...and run.

Ah yes, Anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal, pinko, commie, who listens to Air America while smoking pot! :roll:

[California Joe]

You can't keep using the "war" as the reason the economy is going to sh*t as if it was some unforseen event when we picked the time and place for it. That's retarded.

[shocker1]

If anything the government spending during this war helped temper the effects of oil, falling dollar and tight lending to businesses. To bad it was borrowed money that we will have to pay back at interest.

[ViktorNavorski]

If anything the government spending during this war helped temper the effects of oilMy explanation... (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123440&page=2)and we'll get a new source of oil in the U.S. soon (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/innovator_2.html).

[Rictor]

Bwhahaha oh lordy (dabbing tear of laughter from eye). Why can't we conduct a discussion using the real world as our template, and not falling back into some farcical cartoon world populated by Republicans who look like the Monopoly Man? The fact is that the nation voted to launch a war - and it seems to me that we are then responsible to prosecute and fund that war through the victory phase. We do still launch wars with the intention of winning them, and achieving our stated objectives, right? Or are we content to just blow things up and get people killed for effect?

Hey ,we're not an endless money bucket - obviously we can't fund everything under the sun. I'd love to fund comprehensive healthcare for crippled orphans. I'd love to fund healthcare for my own family. But I can provide for my own healthcare - I can't beat the insurgents in Iraq...so given the choice, I'd choose to pay my government to do it. Now I'm off to go pitchfork more infants into the wood-chipper.

The nation "voted" for the war only in a very abstract sense. There was no referendum. What did happen was that their elected representatives voted for the war (though improperly, but we'll leave that aside) and the people overwhelmingly supported the move. But by that same logic, the people are now "voting" to end it, since over 70% of them want to get out of Iraq ASAP.

Secondly, I'm not dealing in stereotypes at all. Unless pointing out inconsistencies between a group's stated ideology (less government) and its actions (more government) can be called that.

You have yet to explain how beating the insurgents in Iraq will have a greater positive impact on the life of Joe Public than, say, getting free health insurance from the government for a few years, which is roughly (I haven't done the math) what could have been paid for. Or building schools or any old thing you care to name. The fact is that the results of victory or loss in Iraq will be 95% psychological and 5% practical. The nation will loose face...ooh, big deal. It happened in Vietnam, in Korea, in Iran etc....in the end, you learned to take it like big boys and moved on, incurring few, if any, practical consequences.

[LMAV]

since over 70% of them want to get out of Iraq ASAP.If that were even remotely true, they would have the votes to do it. The percentage of Americans who want Illegal immigration stopped is much higher and I don't see the democrats doing anything about that. In fact, they are against what most Americans want.