All My Children Discussion Group

Topic: So Bush was the cause of the soaring deficit?

"It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq..."
 - James Carville, the Financial Times.

"The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home."
 - Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Washington Post.

"First, the facts. Nearly the entire deficit for this year and those projected into the near and medium terms are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession. The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars..." 
 - Christopher Hayes, The Nation.

If anyone's interested, the OP also posted this topic on the Y&R PB and received some interesting responses that pointed out major flaws in OP's basic premise. 

http://mediadomain.com/cgi-bin/netforum/yandr_fan/a.cgi/3-138

Replies: (list all replies)

Oooooo, Anon 3, you must have struck a nerve. They don't want to look at the red part of the graph, better known as Obama's deficit. No, they want to tell you how much bigger the blue part should have been if truth be told. Obama can do no wrong. Every nickel of his spending has been necessary and none of it wasted. It has created millions of jobs and the economy is recovering nicely, thank you very much! //Le

Just like Bush did no wrong by getting us into this whole mess in the first place. Didn't you ever clean up someone else's mess and it took you longer than what it took to make the mess in the first place? Everyone wants Obama to flip a switch and make it all right immediately. He said so during his campaign that it 'would get worse before it gets better'. I'm sure you have been sick and it got worse before it got better. Same thing. Obama did not deny that he couldn't fix everything at once. He also has so much to fix. Bush really did a number on the US and now sits back and laughs that Obama is taking the fall for everything because it can't be fixed in one easy solution. Let's see you take it all on at once besides new problems coming up every day. Have a happy weekend and relax.

Yes, I know that we would all prefer that Saddam was still over there killing his people and putting them in ditches and laughing in the face of the U. N. inspectors. Bush certainly has a lot to answer for! // Le

)) I wish you had signed your name because you are absolutely correct. ~i&b

''Absolutely correct''? That Bush is sitting back laughing that Obama is ''taking the fall''? Please! //Le

You undoubtedly know nothing about history. Other dictators have killed far more than Hussein ever did. Stalin killed 23 million civilians and we didn’t start a war with him. When Nixon decided to bomb the rice fields of N. Vietnam, he knew it would ONLY kill women and children. Those were counted as GENOCIDE. The U.S. also used WMD on them. He wasn’t even impeached. So don’t spew this crap that we had to take out Hussein. It does not fly! It’s just another right wing propaganda excuse that people who don’t know any better always prefer to believe. /!

I didn't say we ''had'' to take out Hussein. I said ''yes, I know we all prefer that he was still over there killing his people and putting them in ditches''. Wouldn't you rather have him still there than the consequences of the Iraq war? I assumed that most people would. It wouldn't bother me if Saddam killed them all. // Le

You left out, ‘’and laughing in the face of the U. N. inspectors. Bush certainly has a lot to answer for!’’ I know exactly what you meant, but go ahead, can spin it any way you want. / !

Does that mean that you agree with me, that instead of this useless war, Saddam should still be over there killing his people? Well, and ''laughing in the face of the U. N. inspectors'' since you seemed to find some significance in that. // Le

Le, the only reason that we are at war in the middle east is because of oil. The U.S. needs oil and the middle east has lots of oil. We didn't go to war because of Saddam. You are very naive. Holly

Naive? Um...I don't think so. Dethroning Saddam was the end result, whatever the reason we went in the first place. // Le

Then once he was 'dethroned', why didn't we leave.?/Peace

Yes, Le. Bush is very likely pleased that he got out of the giant, flaming mess he created in Iraq without having to lift a finger to clean it up. And the icing on the cake is that the Republicans will blame Obama for the inevitable fallout in the 2012 campaign and people like you will buy it hook, line & sinker. ~i&b

What do you mean the war is about oil? Are we robbing Iraq of oil? Are we syphoning oil from Iraq and not paying for it? How can we steal oil? Are the Iraqi oil people handing over oil to get us out of their country? What do people mean when they say it's about oil? The US has plenty of oil, but the whacko tree-huggers won't let us drill for it. So, it could be said that the whacko tree-huggers are killing the Iraqi people and US soldiers.

Peace, you asked ''when he was dethroned why didn't we leave?'' after I just got through saying WHATEVER THE REASON WE WENT the end result was his dethroning. In plain(er) English, that was not WHY we went, therefore we did not leave once it happened. I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that. // Le

Oh, my! I didn't mean to upset you./Peace

Not upset. I used capital letters for emphasis, not shouting. I could never get mad at anyone here. // Le

---

Posted by: lemerba
Date posted: Thu Sep 2 23:11:01 2010
Message:

Happy Labor Day weekend MD.  Let's spend five minutes to send some love out to the 50,000 non combat troops still in Iraq today and the many more still in Afghanistan who are not spending the holiday with their loved ones.  Then let's give a donation to a food bank in your neighborhood for the 10% ( l love that expression instead of the number in millions of people don't you?) of the population who on this labor day, do not have a job!  We do what we can okay.  Then let's hit the barbeque!  Have a safe and happy holiday weekend.

Replies: (list all replies)

I mean since we are talking about the money wasted in Iraq, I'm just saying let's do something on the homefront that is money well spent.

---

Posted by: Anon 4
Date posted: Thu Sep 2 20:53:39 2010
Message:
American Thinker is a conservative internet publication and has cherry picked their numbers without taking the indirect costs into account:
From Wikipedia:
"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]
Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[11] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[11]"

It also does not take into account the cost of health care for returning veterans or the cost to the military to replace lost equipment. It only takes into account the amount that actually appears in the budget. That is hardly a true accounting.

Replies: (list all replies)

Thank you for answering my question. eom/CaroleA

---

Posted by: CaroleA
Date posted: Thu Sep 2 16:39:10 2010
Message:

Just curious--what does your figure represent?  Does it include the cost of care for veterans?  Does it include the cost of funerals for the 4,000 plus troops who gave their lives?  Does it include the pittance paid to the surviving spouse and family? 

None of the people you quoted are stupid, so I am curious as to why we should take your word for it.  I was an analyst before I retired, so I need more than your graph.

Replies: (list all replies)

Sorry, I should have made it clear. That is from an article, the link to American Thinker is at the bottom of the post. As I understand it, the graph is from the CBO. // Anon 3

---

Posted by: PetraII
Date posted: Thu Sep 2 14:49:07 2010
Message:

Happy Labor Day weekend!!

---

---