SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Obama's failed stimulus cost way more than Iraq

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

Until the standard currency changes from the US Dollar to... some other thing (Euro? Confused

), I doubt any country would threaten the US economy as it'd likely just crash theirs too.

Posted: Aug 25 2010 08:15 pm

Quote:

* 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).

I love how these bullets try to make the war costs seem insignificant, when the stimulus costs would have the exact same stats. Replace 'Iraq war' with "stimulus Package' and everything is still true.

Quote:

* 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.

So the stimulus cost $825 billion to try and help Americans, and didn't work, whereas the war cost $725 billion to try and help Iraqis, and didn't work.

Posted: Aug 25 2010 08:36 pm

Vald, look at the chart in the link provided.

In 2003, Bush had a total budget deficit approaching 400 billion. In 2004, he had a deficit just over 400 billion. From 2005-2007, the budget deficits decreased each year, with the 2007 deficit being under 200 billion. In 2008, the budget deficit was up over 400 billion again. Keep in mind, this included the bank bailout.

In 2009, Obama had a budget deficit over 1400 billion. In a single year, Obama had a budget deficit equal to about 90% of the deficits that Bush had in 6 years. The projected budget deficit for this year is another 1300 billion. That's ridiculous. That's also over 400 billion more than Reagan spent in 8 years as president.

Posted: Aug 25 2010 08:42 pm

I'm just interpreting the bullets that were posted.

Posted: Aug 25 2010 08:44 pm

Dude, you don't just don't understand math. It's okay. It's not for everyone.

Title: Kenka Bancho Joined: May 05 2010 Posts: 227

That's a ton of monopoly money to spend in a short amount of time, especially considering that these are only temporary fixes and don't address the problems directly.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 25 2010 10:00 pm

I'll be honest, I don't care if a government program works or not. Not everything a private business does goes over well either, ya know?

The question in my mind is, are they doing something for the people? Are they at least making the attempt?

49% of the people may disagree about how to solve a problem, but I think 100% agree inaction is worse.

Posted: Aug 25 2010 10:04 pm

If a private business ran itself the way the government did, it would either:

A) Go out of business.
B) Get bailed out by the government.

A 2.7 trillion in deficits in two years in unacceptable.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Syd Lexia wrote:

If a private business ran itself the way the government did, it would either:

A) Go out of business.
B) Get bailed out by the government.

A 2.7 trillion in deficits in two years in unacceptable.

So true...

But at least we don't have 11 day traffic jams.

Posted: Aug 26 2010 10:53 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201368300

Speaking of the stimulus thingy, when did Yahoo officially get onto the Obamadmin's dongle all like this? Yeesh.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 26 2010 11:08 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

If a private business ran itself the way the government did, it would either:

A) Go out of business.
B) Get bailed out by the government.

A 2.7 trillion in deficits in two years in unacceptable.

Yeah, a business should have one person in charge for a long period of time, a bunch of people below that guy who agree with him completely, ruthlessly pursue it's goal, provide wealth to the people who invested in it, and anyone who doesn't agree with the company policy gets fired.

On the whole, sounds like a dictatorship.

This country may not have the best management, but you know something? A "business" like the US has a great product, employs a huge, loyal work force, brings in incredible revenue, has a perfect credit rating and unlimited borrowing potential, excellent PR, has been in place for over 230 years AND provides it's services at a lower cost than competing "businesses". That company isn't going out of business soon.

Posted: Aug 26 2010 01:06 pm

aeonic wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201368300

Speaking of the stimulus thingy, when did Yahoo officially get onto the Obamadmin's dongle all like this? Yeesh.

What's wrong with this article? Just because it's a positive story doesn't mean it's biased. The Recovery Act has done a lot of helpful things. This article points those out since so many people have the idea that it was a big waste of money. I mean just look at the title of this topic. Some people are clueless as to what was in it, and what it has achieved. They focus on the size of it, and some of the wasteful elements. Well, whenever you spend a lot of money, be it the government or a private business...there is waste. On the whole, it has been successful.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

aeonic wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201368300

Speaking of the stimulus thingy, when did Yahoo officially get onto the Obamadmin's dongle all like this? Yeesh.

Everything yahoo writes is fucking garbage. I don't mean that as a democrat either, I don't care if they write positive or negative obama articles,I mean it as a literate human being. Every article I have read on there is barely fit for a free highschool paper written by students.

Posted: Aug 26 2010 02:11 pm

I'll be pissed if the country stops wasting money. I'll agree that its often inefficient but I benefit through things like roads, parks, high-school education, student financial aid, police/firemen and the best fucking military on earth. If we were to suddenly balance the budget, all of those things (and many more) would suffer. I'm not opposed to actually paying for these services instead of racking up debt but we're also paying off past debts.

So what I'm trying to say is this: the first generation that has to live under a balanced budget is going to get hit with a double-whammy. They'll be living with pathetic, under-funded state/government programs while simultaneously paying for the excessive programs of past generations.

I think most people are selfish and would agree with me. Show me someone who can honestly say "I'd like to cut the number of policemen by 30% so we can finally pay off some agriculture programs from the 1920's.".

Also, I'm not having kids otherwise I might have a different opinion. But I'm fine with your kids paying for my shit.

Joined: Mar 13 2009 Location: Arlington Posts: 467

Pandajuice wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

China could completely devalue the dollar at any time if they choose because we owe them so much money. It's scary.

The American dollar is already pretty weak against other currencies around the world, and like someone said before, what we owe to China is meaningless because it's not really money and they can't just demand that we pay up. China isn't going to attack us out of the blue because we owe them money; sorry fearmongers. In fact, we'll never pay it back, China won't do anything about it, and the deficit will continue to grow as it has for a hundred years.

It's not real money that has no impact whatsoever on the economy.

Also, didn't the stimulus bill pass under Bush's administration?

This is pretty much right on.

To start collecting the money we owe China will defeat the economic model they've been working on for last decade. They peg their currency to always float below the US dollar. This way, it 's always cheaper for the US to buy Chinese products and not the other way around. I would imagine if it ever becomes a problem, we'll back off on Taiwan and they will forgive a few hundred billion in debt.

Title: Kenka Bancho Joined: May 05 2010 Posts: 227

Quote:

On the whole, it has been successful.

That's highly questionable at this point. Many of the proposed items in the act have yet to actually materialize and have results that can be compared, analyzed, etc... and probably won't be for quite some time.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

we should hurry up and get involved in some sort of alien invasion that draws teh entire planet to work together, setting aside their differences and pooling resources for the fate of the human race.

Posted: Aug 26 2010 03:39 pm

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

Everything yahoo writes is fucking garbage. I don't mean that as a democrat either, I don't care if they write positive or negative obama articles,I mean it as a literate human being. Every article I have read on there is barely fit for a free highschool paper written by students.

Did you read the article, or click the link? It's not a Yahoo news story. It's a Time magazine piece. I agree that a lot of Yahoo's 'news' articles are shit, but this one wasn't written by someone at Yahoo, nor was it shit.

Posted: Aug 26 2010 03:40 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

A "business" like the US has a great product, employs a huge, loyal work force, brings in incredible revenue, has a perfect credit rating and unlimited borrowing potential, excellent PR, has been in place for over 230 years AND provides it's services at a lower cost than competing "businesses". That company isn't going out of business soon.

Depends on the product. The U.S. government more or less "owns" the auto industry right now and they make inferior products at shitty prices... which is why they needed a bailout in the first place. Of course, it's not the auto industry's fault, it's the fault of the unions. We need to bring back the Pinkertons. They'll bust those worthless union types up real good.

Posted: Aug 26 2010 03:42 pm

While we're talking about numbers, the Bush tax cuts for wealthy have costed us an estimated 2.3 trillion dollars...enough to pay for both the Iraq War and the Recovery Act. Will be nice when those expire at the end of the year.

Posted: Aug 26 2010 03:50 pm

What would be better is if we had a flat tax.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 26 2010 08:33 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

A "business" like the US has a great product, employs a huge, loyal work force, brings in incredible revenue, has a perfect credit rating and unlimited borrowing potential, excellent PR, has been in place for over 230 years AND provides it's services at a lower cost than competing "businesses". That company isn't going out of business soon.

Depends on the product. The U.S. government more or less "owns" the auto industry right now and they make inferior products at shitty prices... which is why they needed a bailout in the first place. Of course, it's not the auto industry's fault, it's the fault of the unions. We need to bring back the Pinkertons. They'll bust those worthless union types up real good.

The "product" is government, Syd. Yeesh.

Posted: Aug 26 2010 08:41 pm

My dad went to Iraq in 2003, back when the war was way worse then it is now. Overall i support the war, because mainly i think its important to eliminate insurgancy. If we didnt go in, insurgants would have thought we were pussies and wouldnt have done anything. God bless our troops still their, then american public really doesnt understand what were doing out their

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

Klimbatize wrote:

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

Everything yahoo writes is fucking garbage. I don't mean that as a democrat either, I don't care if they write positive or negative obama articles,I mean it as a literate human being. Every article I have read on there is barely fit for a free highschool paper written by students.

Did you read the article, or click the link? It's not a Yahoo news story. It's a Time magazine piece. I agree that a lot of Yahoo's 'news' articles are shit, but this one wasn't written by someone at Yahoo, nor was it shit.

No I didn't I instinctively stay away from yahoo articles, though I do forget they also post articles from other sources. Sorry for the being too harsh.