Stimulus Bill cost us more than the War in Iraq and Afghanistan!!

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
And still we lose jobs. I said it before, government spending ala Keynesian theory does not work and John Maynard Keynes admitted such himself. The New Deal was a boondoggle and Obama's stimulus package is proving to be a boondoggle.

Its what happens when you elect a guy who never had a real job assisted by guys who don't pay their fair share of taxes.

The economy is now all Obama's and the Dems and it is tanking worse than Bush ever did. 9.5% unemployment squarely on the shoulders of "Progressives." I thought we were getting better but Obama is bungling this worse than can be imagined.

Cost of 2 wars:

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War


The Stimulus bill I believe was $787 billion.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Maybe if Obama's predecessor hadn't broke the bank with the 685 billion boondoggle in Iraq, you all wouldn't be in the tank so deep at the moment.
 

Cowabanga

Experimental Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Posts
354
Media
7
Likes
10
Points
263
Location
northwest
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think you need to check your fact, because after this is all over, the final cost and estimate of this war is in the 3 trillion dollar margin, there is no way that this war is under a trillion dollar mark. You can not just stop everything once you have military over in another country and just leave them stranded. Starting and finishing a war is a process, not a shopping list at the supermarket.

I rather have a 3 trillion dollar stimulus money than a 3 trillion dollar war on any day! I think its appalling that you would complain about investing in our future, instead of the waste in wars! But go ahead and be that person that thinks spending on war is the wiser choice, as oppose to enriching our children welfare and education. More power to you!
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
How like a rabid conservative to consider costs exclusively in dollars when 4,639 allied lives were snuffed out (over 31,000 injured), not to mention tens of thousands Iraqis, all lost to Bush's Boondoggle. Fuck the money, I'd gladly pay higher taxes to pay get those lives back. Pity it doesn't work that way.

Now which cost more?
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
I think you need to check your fact, because after this is all over, the final cost and estimate of this war is in the 3 trillion dollar margin, there is no way that this war is under a trillion dollar mark.

I rather have a 3 trillion dollar stimulus money than a 3 trillion dollar war on any day! I think its appalling that you would complain about investing in our future, instead of the waste in wars!

Exactly. The spigot is endless for the Department of Defense but anything else zero. All other spending is socialism.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
This premise idiotically overlooks the obvious: the stimulus plan entails moneys spent in the interest of...wait for it...stimulating growth in our economy again. It's a plan designed to see returns on the public investment made up front.

As distinct from the moneys spent fighting Bush's War on Terror™, which are essentially tax dollars flushed down the toilet...or "lost" in transport...in either case, winding up in the coffers of well-connected contractors.
 

pycoh567

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
36
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Gender
Male
you guys realize this is all by design, no party is for the people, the government is not for the people, now get out there and protest!
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,963
Media
3
Likes
19,599
Points
643
Gender
Male
And still we lose jobs. I said it before, government spending ala Keynesian theory does not work and John Maynard Keynes admitted such himself

Its what happens when you elect a guy who never had a real job assisted by guys who don't pay their fair share of taxes.

The economy is now all Obama's and the Dems and it is tanking...


Yet you claimed government spending worked ever so well during George W. Bush's era. In fact, even as the U.S. economy declined, you hailed him as an economic wizard:

Bush: foreign policy nitwit, economic wizard

there is no way to argue with his brilliance at economic policy...
He reduced taxes and revenues climbed by record numbers...
Supply side econ works!!!! There is no arguing with numbers.
Goes hand in hand with my treatise on taxes=bad (in general)


Far from taxes=bad, they are needed to fund the two foreign wars of G.W.Bush, debt incurred from them and the government's budget. You and the elected Bush guy, "assisted by guys who don't pay their fair share of taxes", who extolled the wonders of Reaganomics are only fooling yourselves. Supply side economics do not work.

10




Maybe if Obama's predecessor hadn't broke the bank with the 685 billion boondoggle in Iraq, you all wouldn't be in the tank so deep at the moment.

It was such a tragedy for Wylde to see an economic meltdown occur on the watch of his so called economic wizard. He even thought that Obama was president then. Poor, deluded soul. :no:

http://www.lpsg.org/110805-this-is-going-t-fun.html






How like a rabid conservative to consider costs exclusively in dollars when 4,639 lives were snuffed out (over 31,000 injured), not to mention tens of thousands Iraqis, all lost to Bush's Boondoggle. Fuck the money, I'd gladly pay higher taxes to pay get those lives back. Pity it doesn't work that way.

Now which cost more?


In his opinion (circa May 2007) your computer costs more::rolleyes:


The war costs $90 billion a year...This in an economy that produces $11 TRILLION!!!!!! in goods, wages, and services, our GDP. $90 billion is the locomotive pulling $11 trillion???!!! Ridiculous. If your household makes $50000, that in ratio is $350. Your computer you are using now cost more than $350 and I doubt it was a huge burden to swallow for most.

The problem with the war is it ISN"T affecting people. Its sterile for the most part. Only a select poorer group is paying tha cost in bone and blood.
 
Last edited:

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yet you claimed government spending worked ever so well during George W. Bush's era. In fact, even as the U.S. economy declined, you hailed him as an economic wizard:




Far from taxes=bad, they are needed to fund the two foreign wars of G.W.Bush, debt incurred from them and the government's budget. You and the elected Bush guy, "assisted by guys who don't pay their fair share of taxes", who extolled the wonders of Reaganomics are only fooling yourselves. Supply side economics do not work.

10






It was such a tragedy for Wylde to see an economic meltdown occur on the watch of his so called economic wizard. He even thought that Obama was president then. Poor, deluded soul. :no:

http://www.lpsg.org/110805-this-is-going-t-fun.html









In his opinion (circa May 2007) your computer costs more::rolleyes:

You know, I thought I was rather erudite but you post confirms I know EXACTLY what is the truth.

Thank you
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If you are going to quote me quote it all. George Bush was NOT a conservative. He never reigned in spending. His tax cuts created the largest federal revenue ever. That cannot be argued. Had he be a true supply sider, he would have balanced the budget. Then that would have been supply side at its best.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
I'm VERY interested in what conservative has actually reigned in spending? It's amazing now that it's official the GWB presidency was a disaster how now they're saying 'we he wasn't really a conservative' even though he called himself as such and conservatives voted for him. He nominated ultra-conservative judges to the bench. But now it's time to dance away from the wreckage and say he wasn't a conservative.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Yes we know. Very compassionate to the plight of CEO's trying to make a few million but weighed down by pesky anti-trust laws and nuisance regulations. Those agencies virtually shut down during his reign of error.
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
There was a letter I received in December. I wish that I was able to find it right now. That letter originated with a Southern California CPA. It was really interesting. The content of this letter discussesd the bail outs.

The basic bottom line was that if we took the quantities of money and literally divided the amount of those bail outs by having the United States Government write checks to each and every United States Citizen we would have all received checkes in the area of about 3.8 million dollars.

The research that this fellow did was extremely detailed and took into account people in prisons and others who would be exempted.

I want to ask each one of you. If you were given a gift of about 3.8 million dollars what would you do and how fast do you think that this kind of bail out would fix the economy and our industrial might.

We would fix real estate because the foreclosures would end. People would buy new vehicles because they would be able to afford them. Consumer goods sales would skyrocket in general because we would purchase those things we had been wanting and banks and loan companies would profit because loans would be paid off and new loans could be issued.

Industry would become strong enough to be buying foreign industrial conglomerates instead of selling out to them.

There is zero doubt that this would work.

Now instead of something that would work we hand our tax dollrs to a bunch of banks, insurance companies and industies that have proven themselves unworthy of even our business.

Giving the bail out to the american taxpayer would be the real bailout. Giving it to the already rich will be a bandaid as usual. Long term it is a proposition that works just perfectly for the rich few. Under the present kind of bailout the rich get richer and the poor cannot move up.

Who do you think engineered this whole thing.