So, where were you when your party was running the show and was spending billions in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It seems that the rules change and fiscal conservatism only applies when the Dems are in control.
Studies: Iraq Costs US $12B per month
"The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show. In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the “burn” rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book. Beyond 2008, working with “best-case” and “realistic-moderate” scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.
** Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say.
** The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has done its own projections and comes in lower, forecasting a cumulative cost by 2017 of $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion for the two wars, with Iraq generally accounting for three-quarters of the costs."
**
**
Certainly you’re not referring to the republican party as the party of fiscal conservatives, are you?
If you are, then you really haven’t been paying attention lately.
But then again, I guess I can understand your confusion. Sadly, even our current crop of spend thrift republicans can seem fiscally conservative compared to Obama and his merry little bunch.
i don’t understand why the left keeps bringing up the bush administration as if any conservative approves of him
and I don’t understand why the right keeps bringing up obama as if anyone on the left approves of him.
they are both political idiots, we all know this. some of us have slight preferences for the type of idiot is all.
instead of focusing our energies at taking potshots at the current crop of moron politicians perhaps we could start identifying and helping elect good ones?
First off “Fiscal conservative” has nothing to do with “Republican”. “Fiscal conservative” means exactly that “Fiscal conservative”. That could be a Democrat, a rep or anyone else.
Second I was not a fan of the Iraqi war, and not even to crazy about Afghanistan but that I thought could be construed as “Self defense”.
Third it would take 5 years 8 months 8 days of the war in Iraq to cost as much as the single “Stimulus plan” at 12B a month…not that that matters but gives some perspective. Combine TARP and the “Stimulus” and we spent as much as all the years in Iraq.
Frankly I would have like to seen no Iraq, No bailout, No stimulus…but I’m a fiscal conservative…not Republican or Democrat
So Bush runs up the debt to $400 billion in 8 years, and the Republicans can’t complain that the Dems are going to triple it in 12 months?
Since every single Democratic voted against Kyto, can they complain about Bush’s environmental policy?
Since the Democrats were in charge when the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Bosnia started can they complain about Iraq?
So, how much the the US spend to keep the country safe from terrorism?
In 2003, Iraq was not a real threat to us. We went into Afghanistan because of 9/11, which was the right thing to do. Then we got sidetracked with Iraq.
**Certainly you’re not referring to the republican party as the party of fiscal conservatives, are you? **
No, the party isn’t generally fiscally conservative, but that is where most of them come from. My point is that Washington, no matter who is running the show (including Reagan) spend money like drunk sailors on shore leave. But, when the money isn’t going to “their causes” then the spending is wasteful. It works well for them, I have to admit.
**instead of focusing our energies at taking potshots at the current crop of moron politicians perhaps we could start identifying and helping elect good ones? **
That would be great. I don’t think many “good” people get into politics. If they did, we would probably elect them. When it comes time to vote it’s often a choice between the lesser of two evils. That’s the problem.
but bush bush bush…bush is so 70’s…trim it already!
Really? You know he was just left office after 8 years, right?
We are not allowed to bring up Bush because he is not a conservative. That is interesting since he won two elections with a majority of Republicans voting for him (including conservatives).
I get it. Conservatives now don’t want anything to do with Bush, right?
But why is Bush and his administration off limits? It’s weird. Many people act like the last 8 years didn’t even happen. Maybe they just want to forget.
The link below is to an interesting piece from The Economist. The mag likes Obama, but to me, seems to be worrying (not just in this article) that he is being too ambitious.
"FOR a man who is likely to run a budget deficit in excess of 12% of GDP this year, Barack Obama can do a surprisingly good impression of a fiscal hawk. Just days after signing into law a huge $787 billion fiscal stimulus, he kicked off a “summit” of congressional leaders, administration officials and policy wonks by warning of “another crisis down the road as our interest payments rise, our obligations come due”.
I was talking about “bush”…Go watch a 70’s porno and then watch a more recent porno, then you will know what “bush” I am talking about…
post of the month
.
So, where were you when your party was running the show and was spending billions in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It seems that the rules change and fiscal conservatism only applies when the Dems are in control.
You’re better than that, Fitzie. Almost no Democrat I know disputes what the mission in Afghanistan was and still is about. Iraq will just have to be something that Dems and Repubs will agree to disagree on. But, the larger point is that that’s changing the subject when it comes to spending *trillions *of dollars none of us has on some pent-up demand that Democrats seem to have built up when it comes to healthcare and other “social justice” programs.
Not that I listen to that fellow, but I can see the genius behind creating a focus on Rush Limbaugh in a kind of sleight-of-hand to distract people from really thinking about the consequences we might* *experience as a result of this spending orgy. Certainly, the markets are punishing the various economic spending plans mercilessly, and that could be just the beginning. I’m still waiting for an explanation of how spending millions of dollars on some of those earmarks (are we calling them that, these days?) will benefit the overall health of the economy, too.
