Oh Now They're Deficit Hawks

[one...two...tree 2,762]

####### Cheney declared during Bush's first term, "Deficits don't matter." Congressional Republicans agreed, spent freely, and gladly put two wars on the national charge card. The results were trillions of dollars in additional debt and enormous annual budget deficits. Now that the White House is poised to welcome a Democratic president, and an economic crisis demands massive new federal spending, congressional Republicans have decided they suddenly care about deficits again. How convenient.

Out of power, Republicans appear to be retreating to familiar old ground. They're becoming deficit hawks again.

GOP lawmakers didn't seem to mind enjoying the fruits of government largesse for the past eight years while one of their own was in the White House. Now they're struggling to regain footing at a time of economic rout, a record $1.2 trillion budget deficit and an incoming Democratic president claiming a mandate for change.

It might not be the best time for running against more government spending. But that hasn't stopped Republicans from casting themselves as protectors of the public purse, striving for relevancy as Congress tackles President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus legislation.

"Congress cannot keep writing checks and simply pass IOUs to our children and grandchildren," says Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Asks House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio: "How much debt are we going to pile on future generations?"

I don't know, how much economic collapse are we prepared to hand to future generations?

"It's hard to oppose fixing the economy right now," said Stanley Collender, a former congressional budget analyst now with Qorvis Communications, a Washington consulting firm. Collender said the depth of the crisis makes it difficult for fiscal conservatives in either party "to say that deficits are something that should be addressed right now."

"If you say that, you kind of lose credibility," Collender said.

True, but when you have no credibility, I suppose you have nothing to lose.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[mawilson 2,133]

Well somebody's got to care. Or at least pretend to.

[DEDixon 39]

Cost of Iraq war according to http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home is less than 600 Billion so around 100 Billion a year. That hardly seems a lot given the what has been spent to bring back the economy and what will be spent. 100 Billion a year seems hardly worth mentioning.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Cost of Iraq war according to http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home is less than 600 Billion so around 100 Billion a year. That hardly seems a lot given the what has been spent to bring back the economy and what will be spent. 100 Billion a year seems hardly worth mentioning.

Riiight...

The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

....

As the fifth year of the war draws to a close, operating costs (spending on the war itself, what you might call “running expenses”) for 2008 are projected to exceed $12.5 billion a month for Iraq alone, up from $4.4 billion in 2003, and with Afghanistan the total is $16 billion a month. Sixteen billion dollars is equal to the annual budget of the United Nations, or of all but 13 of the US states. Even so, it does not include the $500 billion we already spend per year on the regular expenses of the Defence Department. Nor does it include other hidden expenditures, such as intelligence gathering, or funds mixed in with the budgets of other departments.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle3419840.ece

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

steven, didn't you say just before the election the republicans had to reinvent themselves?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

steven, didn't you say just before the election the republicans had to reinvent themselves?

LOL....yes - and this isn't reinventing themselves. Right now isn't the time to be talking about the deficit when we have a more impending problem - the economy. Once the economy is on a recovery or upward swing, then they can talk about bringing down the deficit which would be a welcome change from how Republicans have regarded the deficit since Reagan.

[DEDixon 39]

You are right... Bush said, Bush said and he was wrong (still got elected a 2nd term though), but get ready for Obama said, Obama said because he has already backed off what he said during the campaign. Why would any of this surprise you? Why do you act surprised? They say anything to get elected and they say anything to get their pet projects funded. Nothing is a surprise to me anymore and nothing makes me mad anymore and I'm a not happier for it.

I initially supported the war, because I thought it was "American" to liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator, but I've learned a lot from the Iraqi war. We should not be pushing the "American" model (gov't and culture) on any nation for it surely is not perfect. Just recently I was listening to NPR and the Common Wealth Club in San Francisco invited an official from Afghanistan to speak and to answer questions. I thought it was completely out of line for an American to ask when homosexuals were going to be protected, given civil rights... blah, blah, blah in Afghanistan... what a stupid question!!!! Maybe in 50 years they'll be ready for that question and maybe not and if they aren't so be it, it is their culture. The Left shouldn't be trying to change this anymore than the Right might try to take prostitutes of the street and out of the bars in Costa Rica.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You are right... Bush said, Bush said and he was wrong (still got elected a 2nd term though), but get ready for Obama said, Obama said because he has already backed off what he said during the campaign. Why would any of this surprise you? Why do you act surprised? They say anything to get elected and they say anything to get their pet projects funded. Nothing is a surprise to me anymore and nothing makes me mad anymore and I'm a not happier for it.

I initially supported the war, because I thought it was "American" to liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator, but I've learned a lot from the Iraqi war. We should not be pushing the "American" model (gov't and culture) on any nation for it surely is not perfect. Just recently I was listening to NPR and the Common Wealth Club in San Francisco invited an official from Afghanistan to speak and to answer questions. I thought it was completely out of line for an American to ask when homosexuals were going to be protected, given civil rights... blah, blah, blah in Afghanistan... what a stupid question!!!! Maybe in 50 years they'll be ready for that question and maybe not and if they aren't so be it, it is their culture. The Left shouldn't be trying to change this anymore than the Right might try to take prostitutes of the street and out of the bars in Costa Rica.

I agree - what a stupid question to ask regarding Afghanistan in the context of what is going on there right now.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Cost of Iraq war according to http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home is less than 600 Billion so around 100 Billion a year. That hardly seems a lot given the what has been spent to bring back the economy and what will be spent. 100 Billion a year seems hardly worth mentioning.

I'm afraid that cute little counter fails to recognize a few facts - one of which is that not a dollar for this war has actually been paid yet. It's all on Uncle Sam's credit card and it's not one of those 0% intro offer cards. The clock also only seems to count the "emergency" funding for Iraq that Congress has passed outside the regular budget ever since the war started. There are funds in the regular budget that go towards the war effort, too. All said and done, the cost of the Iraq war will be in the range of 1.5 - 3 trillion dollars. To be paid by our children, their children and grandchildren.

Remember how they put the total estimated cost of the war effort in the 50 - 200 billion dollar range? That inept (or dishonest or both) bunch!

[NickD 203]

Cost of Iraq war according to http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home is less than 600 Billion so around 100 Billion a year. That hardly seems a lot given the what has been spent to bring back the economy and what will be spent. 100 Billion a year seems hardly worth mentioning.

I'm afraid that cute little counter fails to recognize a few facts - one of which is that not a dollar for this war has actually been paid yet. It's all on Uncle Sam's credit card and it's not one of those 0% intro offer cards. The clock also only seems to count the "emergency" funding for Iraq that Congress has passed outside the regular budget ever since the war started. There are funds in the regular budget that go towards the war effort, too. All said and done, the cost of the Iraq war will be in the range of 1.5 - 3 trillion dollars. To be paid by our children, their children and grandchildren.

Remember how they put the total estimated cost of the war effort in the 50 - 200 billion dollar range? That inept (or dishonest or both) bunch!

Our troops didn't get that money, never did or never will, while not at war, equipment was used and worn out in exercises and blanks were fired instead of the real stuff. With war, a couple of extra bucks for ammo and combat pay, but certainly not in the trillions. Didn't get to exactly stay at a Hilton with room service, if you had to take a #######, dug a hole, and used whatever you could find to wipe yourself. For the most part, your sleeping accommodations was the hole you dug, and better dig it deep.

Whenever I heard Bush cry he needed money for the troops, would have loved to smash his face in his own #######.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the Iraq war was the equivalent of a sub-prime mortgage for this country. Someone buying a 6 bedroom house when they could only afford a one-bed apartment.

[mawilson 2,133]

Remember how they put the total estimated cost of the war effort in the 50 - 200 billion dollar range? That inept (or dishonest or both) bunch!

Ok, so they "misunderestimated" the cost of war.

Are there any guarantees that the Obama camp won't do the same and that we won't need

another $700bn (actually $850bn) bailout or another $1,000bn stimulus?

Citigroup has already received over $300bn in Fed asset guarantees in addition to the TARP funds.

They can't let them fail now, so they'll just keep throwing good money after bad.

Where does this madness stop?

[alienlovechild 75]

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

Pretty misleading since it doesn't factor in the American GDP is far larger now than in 1917-1918 for WWI for example. Also, the number of troops in Vietnam during it's peak is four times what we have in Iraq. Over the weekend CNN had a great show on the deficit that stated if you stop the wars, earmarks and the Bush tax cuts, you'd reduce the deficit by just 15%.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

But we are still going to win the wars right?

Mission Accomplished!