CBO: Obama's "Stimulus" Package Cost More Than Iraq War

[AZGrizFan]

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:

What's really shocking is the SIZE of the deficits run up over the past 18 months.

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.

Time to vote 'em all out!!!

[kalm]

The Bush tax cuts cost more than the war Iraq too.

[ChickenMan]

The Bush tax cuts cost more than the war Iraq too.

Yep.. god forbid we let people keep more of their OWN money rather than have big government piss it away on more pork barrel spending.

[OL FU]

The Bush tax cuts cost more than the war Iraq too.

The way too look at tax cuts is quite simple. In the years subsequent to the tax cuts did federal revenues increase more than they would have with out the cuts. I know federal revenue increased tremendously after the 80s cuts, not so sure about the 00's cuts. Do you know?

[dbackjon]

The Bush tax cuts cost more than the war Iraq too.

The way too look at tax cuts is quite simple. In the years subsequent to the tax cuts did federal revenues increase more than they would have with out the cuts. I know federal revenue increased tremendously after the 80s cuts, not so sure about the 00's cuts. Do you know?

Pretty obvious they did not.

And at least the stimulus kept Americans working, not getting killed for nothing.


And that cost for the Iraq war does not include the hundreds of billions the lifetime care of the hundreds of thousands of permanantly injured soldiers the US is on the hook for.

FAIL by Griz FAN

[OL FU]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The 80s tax cuts clearly increased revenues. Imagine that after all the arguments you hear about Reagon's tax cuts causing deficits

Bush's may have. I think there is a good argument that the housing bubble contributed more to economic growth than the tax cuts.

[OL FU]

The way too look at tax cuts is quite simple. In the years subsequent to the tax cuts did federal revenues increase more than they would have with out the cuts. I know federal revenue increased tremendously after the 80s cuts, not so sure about the 00's cuts. Do you know?

Pretty obvious they did not.

And at least the stimulus kept Americans working, not getting killed for nothing.


And that cost for the Iraq war does not include the hundreds of billions the lifetime care of the hundreds of thousands of permanantly injured soldiers the US is on the hook for.

FAIL by Griz FAN

I don't like the comparison between the two - stimulus vs. war. Personally I think both were failures for different reasons. But certainly, I would rather spend money building than destroying.

Also, didn't think Bush's tax cuts were all that stimulative at the time because the size of them were really small in the grand scheme of the economy. On the other hand, the economy doesn't need any help tipping over so even though they are small, they should be left alone for now and debated when things are better.

[GannonFan]

The way too look at tax cuts is quite simple. In the years subsequent to the tax cuts did federal revenues increase more than they would have with out the cuts. I know federal revenue increased tremendously after the 80s cuts, not so sure about the 00's cuts. Do you know?

Pretty obvious they did not.

And at least the stimulus kept Americans working, not getting killed for nothing.


And that cost for the Iraq war does not include the hundreds of billions the lifetime care of the hundreds of thousands of permanantly injured soldiers the US is on the hook for.

FAIL by Griz FAN

Gotta agree with OL FU here - there are plenty of times when federal revenues are increased through lower tax rates - it doesn't mean that it's a panacea and that all we have to do is lower tax rates to 0% to enjoy maximum revenue, but there is plenty of justification that lower tax rates do, at times, increase revenue.

But the main point of the article is pretty significant - for all the cry about wasting money in Iraq, it was and will be (even with the hundreds of billions of lifetime care) just a blip on the financial tally sheet for the US - we are and will be spending so much more money on other things that it's really silly to be arguing about the cost - it didn't cause any of the problems this country has had economically so to say that it did or will is just missing the point. It caused a lot of other damage (to people and geopolitics) but economically, eh, no biggie.

[ChickenMan]

The problem isn't and never has been revenue or tax cuts.. the problem is out of control SPENDING.. as you can always spend more than you receive. Politicians in general.. but specifically liberals.. are relentless in wastefully spending other people's money in the never ending attempt to ensure relection.

[OL FU]

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:

What's really shocking is the SIZE of the deficits run up over the past 18 months.

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.

Time to vote 'em all out!!!

Another problem with the argument is the deficit increasing because of a dip in tax receipts. Tax receipts are down about $400B( no small sum). but take that and Iraq out of the equation and the deficit has still doubled from 08

did I say doubled, how about quadrupled

[ChickenMan]

Another problem with the argument is the deficit increasing because of a dip in tax receipts. Tax receipts are down about $400B( no small sum). but take that and Iraq out of the equation and the deficit has still doubled from 08

How dare you confuse the issue with FACTS...

[Skjellyfetti]

Hmmmm, I thought the CBO just makes up numbers and is completely unreliable. Is that just when they put out numbers that y'all disagree with or don't want to hear?

[Baldy]

The Bush tax cuts cost more than the war Iraq too.

The way too look at tax cuts is quite simple. In the years subsequent to the tax cuts did federal revenues increase more than they would have with out the cuts. I know federal revenue increased tremendously after the 80s cuts, not so sure about the 00's cuts. Do you know?

Of course it did. To the feeble minded i.e. "progressives", lower tax rates mean lower revenue. If their philosophy isn't supported by the facts, they try to revise the dialogue. All throughout the early 2000's, and after the Bush tax cuts, federal tax collections continuously hit record levels, unfortunately, so did spending levels.

[Appaholic]

The Bush tax cuts cost more than the war Iraq too.

Yep.. god forbid we let people keep more of their OWN money rather than have big government piss it away on more pork barrel spending.

Amen brother.......

[Baldy]

Hmmmm, I thought the CBO just makes up numbers and is completely unreliable. Is that just when they put out numbers that y'all disagree with or don't want to hear?

Big difference between using cooked numbers as a basis for future unrealistic projections and recent cold, hard data.
You can do better than that, ky.

[Skjellyfetti]

Hmmmm, I thought the CBO just makes up numbers and is completely unreliable. Is that just when they put out numbers that y'all disagree with or don't want to hear?

Big difference between using cooked numbers as a basis for future unrealistic projections and recent cold, hard data.
You can do better than that, ky.

No. Only 272 billion of the stimulus has been spent. The rest isn't cold, hard data.

[ASUG8]

Hmmmm, I thought the CBO just makes up numbers and is completely unreliable. Is that just when they put out numbers that y'all disagree with or don't want to hear?

The CBO lost some credibility in my book when they attempted to quantify the jobs "created" or "saved" through the stimulus - not an easy number to figure out for sure, but the size of the range they used was pretty absurd. If your margin of error is +/- a million jobs on a 600K-1.6M range, why even bother?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-16m-jobs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

The Bush tax cuts cost more than the war Iraq too.

Yep.. god forbid we let people keep more of their OWN money rather than have big government piss it away on more pork barrel spending.

+1

Kalm, why do you hate Americans?

[AZGrizFan]

Big difference between using cooked numbers as a basis for future unrealistic projections and recent cold, hard data.
You can do better than that, ky.

No. Only 272 billion of the stimulus has been spent. The rest isn't cold, hard data.

so, only 272 billion spent and ALREADY the deficits have quadrupled. Imagine how bad the graph will look when they spend the other 600 billion.

[Skjellyfetti]

so, only 272 billion spent and ALREADY the deficits have quadrupled. Imagine how bad the graph will look when they spend the other 600 billion.

The deficit hasn't quadrupled.

[AZGrizFan]

so, only 272 billion spent and ALREADY the deficits have quadrupled. Imagine how bad the graph will look when they spend the other 600 billion.

The deficit hasn't quadrupled.

OK. Tripled and a half.

[CitadelGrad]

The deficit hasn't quadrupled.

OK. Tripled and a half.

My god, jellybelly just can't help himself.

[Skjellyfetti]

And the cost of the Iraq war cited in AZ's blog doesn't include emergency or discretionary spending that accounted for a huge chunk of the spending in the war, health care costs of treating the soldiers when the get home, etc.

[kalm]

Yep.. god forbid we let people keep more of their OWN money rather than have big government piss it away on more pork barrel spending.

+1

Kalm, why do you hate Americans?

I love Americans. Why do you hate the middle class?

[BlueHen86]

The problem isn't and never has been revenue or tax cuts.. the problem is out of control SPENDING.. as you can always spend more than you receive. Politicians in general.. but specifically liberals.. are relentless in wastefully spending other people's money in the never ending attempt to ensure relection.

I gotta disagree there. The ability to spend money in excess know no party bounds, especially in recent years. The only difference is what they choose to spend it on.