Obstructionist Republicans

[Andy]

It does appear, from your figures, that the stealfromus (LOL)... I mean stimulus package is the worst of the two, in economic terms at least. Did you take into account the cost of medical care and rehab of war vets? Just wondering.

And, the tax cut and borrow package that is supposed to jump start the stalled economy is to be spent over a period of time, too, isn't it? Are the feds really going to dump the whole 790 billion this month?

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43708

Obama has claimed.... not that I believe ANYTHING he says, but claimed nevertheless that more than half would be spent this coming year.

Keep in mind the federal fiscal year ends in October. So this claim is that 3/4th of the total stimulus will be spent within 20 months. Or $590 Billion by Oct 2010.

For any democrats that failed math class... that's $30 Billion a month.


As for the cost of rehab and war vets, it isn't nearly as much as crazy democrats try and make it out to be. Most soldiers are in for either a 2-year, or 4-year commitment... as best I understand it. My brother-in-law went in for 2 years, and then went on one extra tour because a buddy of his had to go back.

My point is, from 2003 to 2009, clearly hundreds of thousands of troops have returned home. If that was going to spike up by trillions, the cost of military medical care, it would have happened by now.

Yet, the total budget for 2008, for the department of Veterans Affairs is only $45 Billion. Heck, just the interest on the national debt is $261 Billion. That $45 Billion includes all benefits, like higher education expenses. It also includes every vet from prior wars, and it's still only $45 Billion.

So how much do you think it's going to go up from returning soldiers? Even if we were to double that cost, which isn't very likely from any mathematical perspective, we are still only talking about $90 Billion a year.

 

[Andy]

without going into what numbers are used,,,,

Money spent on Iraq....is a money hole, nothing comes back from it,

money spent in US on stimulus package...at least part of it comes back , the more it works the more comes back into the system...its not a empty hole the money is thrown into. The true cost of the stimulus cant really be known without knowing its actual effect.

Not all that true. For me personally, just knowing we helped all those people escape from a tyrannical dictator, and have a chance at a self rule democracy, is a major plus. Doing something good, while at the same time protecting our national security, to me is worth more than money. Granted most Americans are way to self centered to care about terrorized Muslims in the middle east... but believe it or not, the US isn't the center of the universe.

That said, the US stimulus package isn't likely to have any positive effects at all. All the work programs in the 40s didn't help the economy when the taxes levied to pay for those work programs, caused a massive economic recession.

People seem to be forgetting that wealth is not printed. You can't just crank out wealth for everyone, and make the nation prosper. If you could, the Soviet Union would have been the most wealthy nation to ever exist, instead being unable to feed it's own people.

The best we can hope for, is that the stimulus package does nothing at all, but raise the debt, and hope government really cuts back on spend the next 10 years.

The worst it can do, is drag out the recession into another great depression.

 

[BigRob]

While I dont discount what a stable and supportive Iraq could have become, there is a major difference in building thier infastructure and building our own capacity in the same regards. I would much rather have the money spent in America than there.

Fair enough. From my point of view once the US pulls back and focuses mostly inward it will be the end of US hegemony. I think our hegemony brings in economic benefits as well that may not be as apparent or "in your face" as a new bridge would be, but I think it does play a role.

Well, as intended is a tough sell. But a few examples I will point out.
One being of course the new deal.

I think if we compare unemployment rates following the stock market crash, ours went higher once the New Deal was enacted. I also think that this example should prove to everyone that when a politician tells you this government increase is "temporary" it is bogus.

Another that I will mention, that was often lampooned at the time was the interstate highway creation under Eisenhower. It cost a lot of money at the time, and it came with plenty of requirements for those federal dollars. But ultimately it greatly improved the economy by increasing the capacity of the highways for goods and services to travel and ultimately generate GDP.

I can agree that we needed a highway system. What I do not agree with however is the notion that this is a stimulus example.

As I said about Obama's bill. Infrastructure spending can be a good thing, however billions upon billions of dollars included in the bill have nothing to do with infrastructure.