Staying the course = 1.3 trillion over next decade

[uscitizen]

CBO Forecasts ‘Staying the Course’ In Iraq Would Increase Deficit By $1.3 Trillion Over Next Decade

Today, the Congressional Budget Office released its budget projections, estimating the deficit will rise to $286 billion in fiscal 2007, up from this year’s $260 billion projected deficit. Moreover, the long-term outlook remains bleak; total deficits over the next decade are estimated at $1.7 trillion.

The CBO offers an analysis of the impact that the Iraq war will have on future deficit numbers based on different policy options we could pursue. The highlighted numbers in the chart below compare the impact on the deficit between a “stay the course” strategy and a phased withdrawal. The numbers make for a strong economic argument for redeployment.

A phased withdrawal would save $416 billion on the deficit over the next four years and $1.28 trillion over the next decade. On the other hand, a strategy of “stay the course” will increase the deficit by $313 billion over the next four years and $1.3 trillion over the next decade.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/iraq-deficit


You cons better ante up.

[uscitizen]

If Bush had just waited 6 months..........

[Cypress]

Who cares? Bush refuses to pay for it out of current revenue streams or taxes; he's just borrowing the money from our kids and grandkids: they'll pay for it - suckers!

[FUCK THE POLICE]

We already pay about 20% of our budget just on paying off the debt. I AM the kid who's picking up that tab.

[IHateGovernment]

Lets pretend that the Iraq war prevented further terrorists attacks like 911. Of course it has nothing to do with it but lets pretend.

Do you think a couple thousand lives are worth 1.3 trillion dollars.

Perhaps it seems callous but I don't.

[Cypress]

We already pay about 20% of our budget just on paying off the debt. I AM the kid who's picking up that tab.


and I agreed with John Kerry that bush's war should be paid with current tax revenues, even if it meant rasing taxes on the rich. I don't think kids should be paying for bush's war of choice thirty years from now.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Lets pretend that the Iraq war prevented further terrorists attacks like 911. Of course it has nothing to do with it but lets pretend.

Do you think a couple thousand lives are worth 1.3 trillion dollars.

Perhaps it seems callous but I don't.

Besides, you could save tens of millions of lives with 1.3 trillion dollars put into other areas. You could develop the American economy and get a good education for our children. Spending it all on a phantom menace made up to get votes is a massive travesty for the people of the world.

These people act like terrorists are going to take over hte world... have they ever heard of the anarchists? The bottom line is, terrorrists never win, and htey rarely even make a dent except whenever government take away civil liberties ot "fight" them.

[Damocles]

Let's pretend that we actually elected a Conservative President...

[Care4all]

$1.3 trillion is nothing in 10 years... (j/k)!!!

Especially when you look at the fact that President Bush, and his majority congress, have ADDED $1.0 TRILLION DOLLARS to the National Debt every two years that he has been in office.... we are over 3 trillion dollars added to the national debt that we had accumilated to date before of $5.4 trillion dollars..... we are over $8 trillion now and congress just approved our debt level to be raised to $9 trillion....in order to be able to pay the bills....

He is spending like he really believes there will be no tomorrow, no consequenses from this over spending and borrowing from foreigners...I think I read that just 10 years from now our interest payment on our national debt may be as high as 40% of the Yearly Budget..... gees louise, going to nothing but foreigners for an interest payment...not even paying down the debt!

[Cypress]

Let's pretend that we actually elected a Conservative President...


Virtually every single republican in congress went along with bush on almost everything. Are you saying there are no conservatives in the republican party? Or, a bare handful at best?

[Damocles]

I'm saying they got stupid with the whole, "He's the leader of the R Party" thing...

I don't know even one republican that was happy with NCLB funding of education at the Fed Level... I don't know one republican that is happy with spending levels.

[Cypress]

I'm saying they got stupid with the whole, "He's the leader of the R Party" thing...

I don't know even one republican that was happy with NCLB funding of education at the Fed Level... I don't know one republican that is happy with spending levels.

I know you're hanging onto some notion of republicans standing for William F. Buckley conservatism. Its gone dude. Its extinct. Frankly, it was just a mythology anyway, bantered about on the opinion pages of National Review and Wall Street Journal.

This is how the modern republican party is going to govern. They've had six years to total control of all branches of the federal government. They've demonstrated how they will govern. Spend worse than LBJ, and war monger us into unnecessary wars.

Now, the Dems have their own problems. But, the Lieberman defeat offers at least some hope that we can take back the party from old warhorse hacks, who've done nothing for middle class americans.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let's think a little deeper about this $1.3 trillion. Libs would like for us to just assume it is flushed down the toilet, lost money with no discernible gain. This is a fallacy on its face, because the bulk of that money will go to American defense contractors, and will pay Americans to do various tasks for the government, thus putting the bulk of the $1.3 trillion directly back into our economy. The portion which will go to Iraq is a 'goodwill investment' for the future, and having an Arab Democracy as a partner in that region, is more desirable than having a tyrant dictator who lied to us repeatedly and hated our guts.

Giving 25 million people the right to vote in free elections, is at least as worthwhile as giving 100 million people a welfare check for 40 years with no noticeable effect on the poverty level, I would think your outrage over spending would at least be consistent, but it appears it is not.

You can only speculate as to how much "safer" we are from Iraq. Without a crystal ball, you can't really state for certain what might have happened, had we allowed Saddam to remain in power in Iraq. Regardless, the 1998 Clinton policy of Iraqi Liberation is complete, and he is gone now. To abandon Iraq at this point, would allow Iran to assume control in fairly short order, at which point, they effectively control 1/3 of the world's oil supply and they can and will hold us hostage.

[Damocles]

I know you're hanging onto some notion of republicans standing for William F. Buckley conservatism. Its gone dude. Its extinct. Frankly, it was just a mythology anyway, bantered about on the opinion pages of National Review and Wall Street Journal.

This is how the modern republican party is going to govern. They've had six years to total control of all branches of the federal government. They've demonstrated how they will govern. Spend worse than LBJ, and war monger us into unnecessary wars.

Now, the Dems have their own problems. But, the Lieberman defeat offers at least some hope that we can take back the party from old warhorse hacks, who've done nothing for middle class americans.
Nah. When the stuff hits the fan and the Rs lose the House and the Executive they'll end up turning back to what got them there. Actual Conservatism instead of centralized big government..

They might even get my vote again rather than only select Rs and the Libertarians only.

[Cypress]

Damo, the only ones I see throwing out incumbents and holding them accoutable, are the Democrats. Lieberman and McKinney to start with. I'd like to also see Hillary get blocked from a prez nomination. And I think the Dem activists agree with me on that.

What difference would it make if repubs go back to conservatism, only if they get thrown out of power? Its easy to say anything when your out of power. The opposition party doesn't get to make any decisions, or govern in any substantive way.

We can only judge the GOP on how they govern. The past six years is a huge clue.

[Damocles]

Bullpucky. If Rs weren't throwing out incumbents there would be no hope for the Ds to win back the Congress...

Truly, if you look at the polls the R voters are not happy and they are showing it. You have to deliberately ignore History and changes that have happened in the past to just say "They are this way and always will be!" It is plain foolishness.

My point is that the change will likely not take place until after they lose. So you guys better start putting forward some better candidates.

[Cypress]

Let's think a little deeper about this $1.3 trillion. Libs would like for us to just assume it is flushed down the toilet, lost money with no discernible gain. This is a fallacy on its face, because the bulk of that money will go to American defense contractors, and will pay Americans to do various tasks for the government, thus putting the bulk of the $1.3 trillion directly back into our economy. The portion which will go to Iraq is a 'goodwill investment' for the future, and having an Arab Democracy as a partner in that region, is more desirable than having a tyrant dictator who lied to us repeatedly and hated our guts.

Giving 25 million people the right to vote in free elections, is at least as worthwhile as giving 100 million people a welfare check for 40 years with no noticeable effect on the poverty level, I would think your outrage over spending would at least be consistent, but it appears it is not.

You can only speculate as to how much "safer" we are from Iraq. Without a crystal ball, you can't really state for certain what might have happened, had we allowed Saddam to remain in power in Iraq. Regardless, the 1998 Clinton policy of Iraqi Liberation is complete, and he is gone now. To abandon Iraq at this point, would allow Iran to assume control in fairly short order, at which point, they effectively control 1/3 of the world's oil supply and they can and will hold us hostage.


Let's think a little deeper about this $1.3 trillion. Libs would like for us to just assume it is flushed down the toilet .... This is a fallacy the bulk of that money will go to American defense contractors, and will pay Americans to do various tasks for the government, thus putting the bulk of the $1.3 trillion directly back into our economy.

ROFLMAO!

Now you're advocating war profiteering for defense contractors, after denying for three years that war profiteering is a tangent of this war. LOL

Look, if you've converted to Rooseveltian economics overnight, and want to use tax money to put americans to work and build infrastructure, do it in this country. We could use half a trillion to upgrade roads, electrical grids, infrastructure, homeland security, and alternative energy. It would go right into the american economy, provide jobs, and build our infrastructure, helping our economy.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Virtually every single republican in congress went along with bush on almost everything. Are you saying there are no conservatives in the republican party? Or, a bare handful at best?

Ron Paul didn't :)

Gene Taylor, my rep, didn't either. But he's a conservative Democrat, not Republican, and he's amazingly non-partisan for an elected official in modern America. So that's two.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ROFLMAO!

Now you're advocating war profiteering for defense contractors, after denying for three years that war profiteering is a tangent of this war. LOL

Oh no, idiot, did you not read what I responded to or something? Where the fuck you get this shit, is beyond me. I haven't advocated war profiteering, and anyone with any sense at all can understand that. What I am pointing out is, you people look at the $1.3 trillion as if it were a "zero-sum gain" just as you look at everything that way, (tax cuts, etc.)... Now, if you step back and take a logical look at where the $1.3 trillion will be actually spent, you'll realize the bulk of it will end up in the pockets of working Americans. They will then spend it, in America, on American goods and services. So... yeah, the war is costing $1.3 trillion over the next decade, but what about the residual benefits the economy will see from that? Do you just not realize it, or are you conveniently ignoring it? In other words, are you stupid or just dishonest?

[zoombwaz]

Besides, you could save tens of millions of lives with 1.3 trillion dollars put into other areas. You could develop the American economy and get a good education for our children. Spending it all on a phantom menace made up to get votes is a massive travesty for the people of the world.

These people act like terrorists are going to take over hte world... have they ever heard of the anarchists? The bottom line is, terrorrists never win, and htey rarely even make a dent except whenever government take away civil liberties ot "fight" them.

Right on the money. There is no way in hell the terrorists can take over the world. We can't control 26 million Iraqis with 130,000 highly trained and havily armed soldiers and marines. How could OBL even conquer, let alone control, 300 million heavily armed American civilians with 10,000 lightly armed irregulars?

He can't. Period. There is a threat to our freedom, but it's not coming from Osama's cave. It's coming from the White House. Speaking of, the Shrubites are talking to the GOP congressional leadership about amending the 1996 War Crimes Act, and are drafting legislation that would immunize interrogators, soldiers, and administration officials from being prosecuted for violations of the Geneva Convention. Looks like the War-Criminal-in-Chief is trying to cover his ass, doesn't it?

Sure, everything we do is legal, or will be once we change the definitions of torture and humiliating and degrading treatment. Troubled by the fact that what you're doing may be illegal? Most of us regular folks just stop doing the proscribed act. Bush's solution is to 1) deny it's illegal, and if that doesn't fly, 2) legalize it after the fact, and then grandfather himself in, and claim he was always operating within the law. If congress passes a law he doesn't like, he thinks his signing statements and status as CinC absolve him of the responsibility to obey the law. I'm afraid the Chimp Who Would Be King has a rude awakening coming.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is no way in hell the terrorists can take over the world.

This is the problem in a nutshell. You people don't see the threat. You are too spoiled to your American way of life and all the perks, you simply can't imagine it being any different for us. In your mind, there is nothing that will ever threaten your lifestyle, and if so, the ACLU will protect you. Terrorists can kill 3,000 of your fellow citizens, and you act like it's a frikkin' movie, it didn't really happen, they weren't real people, those were stunt men jumping from the burning buildings.

In your warped and twisted minds, you really do believe there will be something that will ultimately "save the day" when it's all said and done, that's how it always works for us, somehow, we find a way to survive and prosper. Terrorists couldn't possibly take over the world, because the men in white hats will show up before that happens. After all, they always have.

It is so far removed from your reality to think America will ever be any different than it is now, except of course, gays can marry and personal responsibility takes a hike, but other than that, we will continue to go to Starbucks on Saturday morning, take our kids to soccer practice, and plan on seeing the latest box office hit next week. Who wants to worry about terror when American Idol is just around the corner? You live in a fantasyland, where nothing ever threatens it, and it just amazingly lasts forever. If you so much as break a nail, you can grab a lawyer and sue someone, so you don't feel threatened by anything, there is always someone you can blame or sue, how can this be any different?

You fail to comprehend history, probably because you never really learned history in the liberal public school system, or you were too busy making out with the teacher or avoiding the history teacher who wanted to make out with you. If you were fortunate enough to open a history book, you were probably indoctrinated into the liberal ideology, taught all about MLK and Civil Rights, and nothing about WWII, except that Truman killed millions of innocent people in Japan.

This is the problem America is faced with. We have a population full of naive idiots who simply don't comprehend the dangers and threats in the world. Like 2-year-olds at a busy intersection, you are clueless to the danger surrounding you, and all you see it the ice cream store across the street! You will literally sit on your hands (and tie others hands behind them) until it's too late, then you'll whimper and cry like you always have, about what you don't think is fair, and you'll expect someone to listen to you and make it right again. The thing is, when the country is gone, it's gone for good. We can't allow the threat of terrorism to destroy what we have here, and if we allow it to, it will. That is the main objective of the terrorists, to drive us back to the 5th century! Your problem is, you think it's a movie, you don't believe it's reality, you can't imagine what it would be like to lose what we have, and you don't really believe we ever will.

[maineman]

that is some funny shit. does anyone take DIxie seriously when he rants like that? Does anyone think that Dixie takes himself seriously when he rants like that?

[Annie]

that is some funny shit. does anyone take DIxie seriously when he rants like that? Does anyone think that Dixie takes himself seriously when he rants like that?

"Rantings" for some, might be "words of prophecy" to another; sort of like Churchill through the 1930's? Just a thought, like the wonderful wisdom regarding terrorists and freedom fighters via Reuters.