The Anchoress says this graph is "going viral today." Let me do my small part here thanks to Randall Hoven at The American Thinker. Hoven notes several sources all coming up with a $3 Trillion cost for the war. Is this really the number he asks. Afraid not.
"The correct answer to my question, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is $709 billion. The Iraq War cost $709 billion. Why Carville, Bilmes, and Nobel-winning economist Stiglitz thought the answer was $3 trillion is anybody's guess. [Think yet another stealth "journolist"] But what's a 323% error among friends?The CBO breaks that cost down over the eight calendar years of 2003-2010. Below is a picture of federal deficits over those years with and without Iraq War spending.
Sources: CBO and U.S. Statistical Abstract.
Just for grins, use the above chart to dissect Christopher Hayes' statement that our current and future deficits are caused by "three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession."Posted by Vanderleun at August 23, 2010 10:14 AMTwo of those three things -- the wars and tax cuts -- were in effect from 2003 through 2007. Do you see alarming deficits or trends from 2003 through 2007 in the above chart? No. In fact, the trend through 2007 is shrinking deficits. What you see is a significant upward tick in 2008, and then an explosion in 2009. Now, what might have happened between 2007 and 2008, and then 2009? -- --- American Thinker: Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not
I'm going to make a prediction based on that chart. I predict the 2010 deficit line will have to be adjusted up. Any takers?
Posted by: Western Chauvinist at August 23, 2010 12:17 PMWe darn well know what happened in 2009. Ed McMahon died. Because of his untimely demise, all the millions and millions of dollars that would have been given out by him and Publisher's Clearing House never got delivered.
This "McMahon Stimulus," which had been quietly supporting the economy for years, finally came to an abrupt end. No longer were these necessary income streams available. No longer was the multiplier effect of these dollars felt. Ergo, no enhanced revenue to tax and use to pay down the debt. Clearly, unchecked spending, runaway entitlements and social-engineering tax policy had nothing to do with it. McMahon did it to us!
Ed's selfish shuffling off this mortal coil sent the deficit skyrocketing. The demise of McMahon also sowed the seeds of our own demise. When Ed kicked the bucket, he also kicked our asses.
Or I could be wrong.
Didn't the democrats take over congress in 2008?
Also one point that is never clear from the "cost of the war" amounts is how much of that amount is truly incremental costs i.e., costs that would not have been spent anyways. All the soldiers would have been paid and feed and run training operations with or without the war so how much is actual additional cost?
Posted by: Scott at August 23, 2010 6:20 PMFrom the 64 years of 1930 to 1994, the US Senate was Republican for ten years, narrowly; the Congress was Republican for four years, more narrowly. Democrats controlled--counting massive majorities only--the Senate for 44 years, the Congress 48. Permanent government was formed permanently.
Republicans are just not up to this. Almost everybody who will vote them in in November knows this. Sad.
Posted by: james wilson at August 23, 2010 7:50 PM@Scott, we actually use food stamps for the married troops. Since that comes from a different budget line, it is fair to 'adjust' that number. How thrifty of our government.
Posted by: Vermont Woodchuck at August 24, 2010 6:08 AM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.
HOME