CBO Forecasts ‘Staying the Course’ In Iraq Would Increase Deficit By $1.3 Trillion Over Next Decade
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.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
120 Responses to “CBO Forecasts ‘Staying the Course’ In Iraq Would Increase Deficit By $1.3 Trillion Over Next Decade”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You can afford it!
August 17th, 2006 at 4:44 pmAlas, if only the Bush administration listened to strong arguments instead of going on blind faith…
August 17th, 2006 at 4:47 pmTell me that isn’t great ammunition for the Dems…
August 17th, 2006 at 4:48 pmYour kids can afford it! Go ahead, war makes you feel powerful and manly!
August 17th, 2006 at 4:48 pmThe obvious solution? More tax cuts!
August 17th, 2006 at 4:50 pmIt’s “adapt to win,” dummy!! Nobody ever said “stay the course.” Just like nobody said “we’ll be welcomed as liberators.”
August 17th, 2006 at 4:50 pmSo much for the Republicans being “fiscally responsible”.
I guess “borrow and spend” is the new mantra for the Republican party.
It’s failures of this nature that make “tax and spend” sound much better!
August 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pmGood thing it’s not real money or we’d all be screwed.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pmLet Global Warming Bush and Shooter Cheney pay for it. They made the mess, they should be responsible for the costs.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:56 pm#1 was not me
August 17th, 2006 at 5:02 pmSome troll impersonating me now ?=P
Even these numbers are highly misleading. What the report doesn’t say is that the projections are based on current law. Curent law has many of the tax cuts expiring. If those projections were based on those tax cuts being made permanent, as Bush proposes, then the deficit would be higher by still another $1.6 trillion over the same 10 year span. Said another way, we are looking at annual deficits of $300 billion for as far as the eye can see.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#1 - yeah, tax cuts, but only for those making more than $165,000 (or whatever congress gets paid now).
August 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pmoops, that s/b #5. no.1 (wayne imposter is a dick!)
August 17th, 2006 at 5:12 pmDamn those tax and spend liberals!
-GSD
August 17th, 2006 at 5:14 pmFinally, a rationale these folks can appreciate. Never mind that our soldiers are killing and being killed and that our country is less secure because of the lies, because if they cared about that stuff we wouldn’t be in this mess. It might actually cost money and make it harder to pass more tax cuts for the rich (i.e. themselves). That will get their attention.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:15 pmBush’s OMB Director, Mitch Daniels, testifying to congress on 3-28-03: “Iraq will not require sustained aid.”
August 17th, 2006 at 5:15 pmBy the way, I’m probably not the only one annoyed by the fact that one can no longer tab easily between the name/email/URI/comment fields without getting jumped up to the search box at the top of the page (between email and URI) or who knows where (between URI and comment). It’s a minor accessibility issue, but galling nonetheless since it used to work properly and it would take about two lines of changed HTML/CSS to fix.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:20 pmGo to the Treasury and you will find the real set of books which shows that the budget deficit right now is 754 billion, more than twice what Bush claims it is.
On the court decision: dont start dancing in the streets just yet, although the decision is a fine one for our democracy.
Bush is appealing and the Bush court will uphold him and we are back to square one. I imagine that this judge is already recieving death threats, but you wont hear about it in the MSM.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:28 pmBush doesn’t care. It’s not coming out of his pocket. Instead, the rest of us will be paying for this bullshi* the rest of our lives, and our children’s lives, and their children’s lives…
August 17th, 2006 at 5:34 pmGW and sociopaths everywhere: “Who cares. Our grandchildren will pay for it!”
August 17th, 2006 at 5:40 pmIt’s time to stop paying taxes.
Pass it on.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:50 pm#19: Don’t you see? That’s why we have to repeal the estate tax — so that your kids and your kids’ kids will inhert your millions of dollars and be able to pay off this war. If the gubbermint takes your money in some kind of Death Tax scheme, then how will your kids pay for these ongoing war costs?
What do you mean you don’t have millions of dollars? This is the land of opportunity! What’s wrong with you, man? You’ve had the opportunity to invest in Halliburton and Lockheed-Martin for years now. Not our fault you didn’t take it. Damn hippy liberal hates the stock market, hates capitalism, hates America. He wants to see Al Kaiduh take over this forum, I’ll bet. Traitor.
(Why aren’t there little “sarcasm” tags defined for HTML? I really think it would help with writing posts like this, so I’m disappointed that they don’t exist. But I’m even more disappointed that Fox hasn’t offered me a quarter million dollar punditry contract yet…)
August 17th, 2006 at 5:54 pm“Mommy, what’s that stuff trickling down on me?”
“Hush, dear — it’s just the Republican economic plan for your future.”
“Mommy — what’s a FUTURE?”
“Hush dear — you won’t need to worry about that, because you’ll be broke, homeless, without medical care and jobless. But at least no terruh-rists will bother you!”
August 17th, 2006 at 5:56 pmIt’s time to get rid of budget items that are low in the priority list.
You know, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social entitlements.
Better put the money towards more laudable ventures, like building a huge military against no external threat and invading countries.
/sarcasm off
August 17th, 2006 at 5:56 pmBush and Company really do “care”…they care to see that Haliburton is able to steal hundreds of billions of dollars, on unbid contracts, while siphoning off as much money from the US treasury as they can scheme and lie their way into. There’s nothing like a war, especially a never ending war, to make Midas-like profits! Al Capone couldn’t begin to compare with these thieves and murders!
August 17th, 2006 at 6:03 pm1.3 Trillion aint that much, shit doesn’t the entire deficit range somewhere in the 60 trillion area? By entire, I mean all of the deficits combined, and using legal accounting methods.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:10 pmWars always historically makes money for cetain groups of people, and this one is no different. The money that the majority of this country translate into real-life experience are: lack of jobs which can support at least a middle-class lifestyle, lack of affordable health care insurance, , inadequate education (focusing on testing and not intellectual growth), and on and on and on. This administration has put our children and grandchildren into enormous debt for years to come, and endangered current adults and seniors.
The bottom ine is this: if they deliberately wanted to destroy this country, they couldn’t have done a better job. So the real question is: is this deliberate? If so, why? And if so, who exactly is responsible, and how do we make them accountable?
August 17th, 2006 at 6:13 pmDon’t panic, anyone. The proud and intelligent Trolls of Freedom will be here shortly to explain all this nonsense away, and remind us that there’s no price too high for hypothetical safety from hypothetical threats.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:13 pmAll of a sudden liberals care about spending? They spent like drunken sailers when they controlled congress with an iron first for 40 years.
The fact is, our men and women are in harm’s way. Who cares how much it costs to supply them with what they need?
August 17th, 2006 at 6:17 pmI believe the first committee to question the administration about the projected cost of the war in Iraq heard an administration estimate of $1.6 Billion. When, during the 2004 election, Kerry and Edwards said the war would cost over $300 billion, they were roundly criticized as alarmists and liars.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:19 pmMr. Big: “They spent like drunken sailers when they controlled congress with an iron first for 40 years.”
Currently, descretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, is higher than at ANY time during those 40 years. Currently, our deficit is larger than at any time during those 40 years.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:20 pmIf we quit politicizing “terror” and let laws and law enforcement do their jobs WITHING THE BONDS OF ESTABLISHED LAWS, we might actually BE SAFER, but career politicians live or die by the vote (which is GOOD, the latter of course), and therefore behave like hyenas on a carcass.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:21 pmMr Big, what is that, a reference to the size of your DROPPINGS?
August 17th, 2006 at 6:22 pmLet me guess. Mr Big read in the National Review that Repubs have cut spending. This information was backed up by bloggers on Powerline and Free Republic.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:22 pm26# Entire debt is at 9.5 trillion USD
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Nothing to worry about, in ten years that will be worth 50 euros (for collectors).
August 17th, 2006 at 6:23 pmCurrently, descretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, is higher than at ANY time during those 40 years.
I’m not very pleased with the spending under the Republicans. But just to be clear, if Dems had their way, they would be spending a lot more. Their usual complaint is that we aren’t spending enough. For example, Bush’s no child left behind. Dems want to spend billions more.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:25 pm“The fact is, our men and women are in harm’s way. ”
Yeah, ever since they were needlessly sent to Iraq.
“Who cares how much it costs to supply them with what they need? ”
Apparently Rumsfeld does. Maybe you should take it up with him. Remember his callous “you go to war with the Army you have” statement? Why are our men and women still not armored properly after all this time?
August 17th, 2006 at 6:26 pmLet me guess. Mr Big read in the National Review that Repubs have cut spending.
Republicans did reduce spending in the last congress, by $40 billion. Not a single Dem voted for the measure.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:26 pmWhy are our men and women still not armored properly after all this time?
Because some troops don’t want to wear it. Reduces their range of movement. But John Kerry actually voted against body armor. Remember that $87 billion approataion he voted against? In it was funding for body armor and armed humvees.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:28 pmBig: “I’m not very pleased with the spending under the Republicans. But just to be clear, if Dems had their way, they would be spending a lot more.”
Again, in that entire 40 years, descretionary spending was never as high as now. Repubs have been in control since ‘94. So, the above statment is not logical. We have a track record here which flies in the face of your assertion. Why do you keep making it?
August 17th, 2006 at 6:30 pmhttp://archives.cnn.com/ 2000/ ALLPOLITICS/ stories/ 05/ 01/ clinton.debt/
August 17th, 2006 at 6:30 pmAn extra $1.3 trillion in debt is hardly a drop in the bucket.
Our current federal debt is approaching $8.5 Trillion. That’s about doubled since Chimpy took office, cut taxes for the rich and corporations, and lied to start an illegal war and occupation of Iraq that is bleeding us dry.
The Iraq war is NOT the war on terrorism and it is actually weakening our ability to fight terrorism around the globe. The sooner we get out of Iraq, the better.
Anybody who still supports Chimpy is an idiot.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:30 pmBig is the most astounding idiot I’ve ever, ever read in these threads. Is he really a drunked-up Grover Norquist? Hopeless - should be banned. A dolt.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:31 pmMr. Big is a Chimpyloving moron. His parents are brother and sister.
When Chimpy posts a record-breaking deficit and then claims he reduced it, thats a load of bullshit.
Go back to Freeperville, Mr. Big and the rest of you Chimpyloving trolls.
This is a Progressive blog. Your ilk are not needed here.
Better leave before Ilk season starts.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:33 pmBig: “Republicans did reduce spending in the last congress, by $40 billion. Not a single Dem voted for the measure.”
Again, descretionary spending AT THIS TIME, is the highest in history, even when adjusted for inflation. OK, again, you are not interested in discussing issues based on facts. There is no reason to engage you. If you don’t agree that republicans have outspent dems, let’s see the facts. I got my numbers from the OMB at the US government site. Where do you get yours? National Review?
August 17th, 2006 at 6:33 pm…and, btw, he completely confirmed my previous post to this thread - more predictable than insects, these trolls
August 17th, 2006 at 6:33 pmThat is so tired, man… He did not vote against armor. Kerry voted against giving Bush a blank check. What about the insufficiently armored Humvees? Where exactly are the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars going if not first and foremost to the protection of our troops?
By the way, Mr. Big, your band still sucks.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:34 pmTrolls have too much time on their hands and should be downsized so they would spend more time WORKING and less time WHINING.
mR. tINY,
You’re either dumb, or brainwashed (both?)
We CAN’T cut spending during wartime, so the Dems where RIGHT to oppose cuts. The Pukes where trying to make a “partison” statement. Bullshit.
And, as with the Iraq war, Shrub and Co. would rather talk about success than commiting to it (i.e. too few troops sent initially to achieve our goal, and too little spending on programs like No Child Left Behind, which he then can claim as innefective BECAUSE HE DIDN’T STAND BEHIND THEM. More bullshit.
Look past the trees and try to see the forest before you.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:36 pmBy the way, Mr. Big, your band still sucks.
Comment by June
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 6:37 pmAgain, in that entire 40 years, descretionary spending was never as high as now.
And that’s too much. But it’s also true that the Democrats wanted even more spending. Their common complaint about legislation is that we’re not spending enough. If Dems had their way, there would be even more spending now.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:40 pmTom, that was great timing.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:41 pmplain as the nose on anyone’s face, the republican/conservative continuum has fallen flat on its face, as it ever has in the history of our country. coolidge and hoover, nixon, reagan and bush1…..losers, who whore themselves for money, to the detriment of all. what abject and pathetic failures, all clad in the regalia of their hypocrisies. over and over and over. blather on all you want, trolls - none of it changes the fact that you are losers, led by losers, bent on dragging good people down into the muck with you.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:43 pmBig: “But it’s also true that the Democrats wanted even more spending.”
How, exactly do you know that. Do you read minds? 7 out of 8 Reagan administration years, the budget Reagan asked for ended up being greater than the one Democrats agreed upon. In other words, Reagan’s republican administration wanted to spend more 7 out of 8 years than the Democratic congress. Tell us, Mr. Big. Do facts matter? Does history matter?
August 17th, 2006 at 6:44 pmDon’t panic, anyone. The proud and intelligent Trolls of Freedom will be here shortly to explain all this nonsense away, and remind us that there’s no price too high for hypothetical safety from hypothetical threats.
Comment by tom baker — August 17, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
The post so nice we posted it twice.
Thats great stuff.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:44 pmIf you don’t agree that republicans have outspent dems, let’s see the facts.
Look at the appropration bills offered by Dems that are voted down. They offer more in spending than the Republican proposals.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:45 pmThat is so tired, man… He did not vote against armor. Kerry voted against giving Bush a blank check.
Yeah, he voted against armor because funding for armor, and funding for armored humvees was included in that vote. He voted no.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:46 pmLet me put this really blunt. Can anyone spell HURICANE RELIEF? Can anyone say DRUGS FOR THE ELDERLY? Where do you think this money is coming from? All the billions we spend come from somewhere! Yeah, the stupid war in Iraq, that should have never been is eating up a lot of cash, but so are all the “SOCIAL” programs and Hurricane assistance programs. (Which BTW is NOT a part of the constitution.) In fact NOWHERE in our constitution has congress been granted the right to take money out of MY pocket, and give it to someone else, nor can they take money out of someone else pocket and give it to me. It is a VIOLATION of the constitution, so if you wanna complain about the stupid war, also complain about all the socialist programs that violate the constitution, that everyone is demanding.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:48 pmWORFEUS, Tom Baker is a troll. He posts that in every thread.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:50 pmMr. Big: “Look at the appropration bills offered by Dems that are voted down.”
Mr. Big, I look at results more than efforts. I suggest you do too. Your mind is locked into this message you’ve been getting now for a couple of decades. I suggest you forget the talk and look at the facts.
Mr. Big: “Yeah, he voted against armor because funding for armor, and funding for armored humvees was included in that vote. He voted no.”
Nope, that’s wrong. He voted no because there was no effort to explain how the bill would be financed. When Democrats proposed measures to actually pay for the bill, Bush threatened to veto it. So, in other words, tax cuts for the wealthy were more important to Bush than armor for the troops. Again, look it up. It’s history.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:51 pm“Yeah, he voted against armor because funding for armor, and funding for armored humvees was included in that vote. He voted no.”
Even IF this were true. It still passed didn’t it? It still doesn’t answer the question. Nice try, though.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:52 pmMr. Big, I look at results more than efforts.
Well, you should be thankful then to the Repubs for voting down all of that Democrat spending in their approations. Look at all those things offered by Dems. Amendment upon amendment. Republicans vote all that spending down. Granted, the Republicans should be spending less, but they are still better than the Dems.
He voted no because there was no effort to explain how the bill would be financed.
I don’t care what his excuse is. You’re just repeating talking points here. The fact is funding for body armor was contained in that bill, and Kerry voted against it. There’s no way to spin it. He could have financed it from one of his wive’s fortunes if he really cared.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:56 pmIt still passed didn’t it? It still doesn’t answer the question.
Yes it passed, no thanks to John Kerry or John Edwards.
And I did answer your question. Some troops don’t want to wear the body armor because it limits their range of motion.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:57 pm“Some troops don’t want to wear the body armor because it limits their range of motion.”
I was referencing the soldiers who have not yet been presented with the proper armor.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:00 pmBig, you’re arguing on the one hand that Dems spend like drunken sailors, and on the other hand that Republicans voting for a bill with no way to pay for it is good policy. Do you see a logical inconsistency in that? Have you ever heard of the concept of “critical thinking?”
August 17th, 2006 at 7:01 pmwas referencing the soldiers who have not yet been presented with the proper armor.
If there is a soldier out there that needs armor and can’t get it, his family should chip in a get it for him. But John Kerry will certianly never come through. He voted agaisnt funding for body armor.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:04 pmRepublicans voting for a bill with no way to pay for it is good policy.
If that’s the case, every stupid social spending proposal Dems support, there’s no way to pay for it.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:06 pmDieNowForPeace,
I’m glad you got a laugh, but I’ve had that stupid f’ing song in my head this whole time.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:06 pmDon’t feed the feral pig. If you don’t feed the feral pig, he will move on to another part of the forest.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:08 pm“his family should chip in a get it for him”
They have been, but the DoD has made it illegal in some instances. Should families also provide better guns? better training? better living conditions? better shower facilities?
How about if they just support bringing them home…
August 17th, 2006 at 7:11 pmHow about if they just support bringing them home…
Do the people serving in Iraq want to come home before their mission is complete?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:13 pmWhat mission?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:14 pmWORF - tyvm….that big, he’s somethin’, huh?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:17 pmDamn! All that Iraqi oil to pay for this folly sure has gotten awfully expensive. The chickens have come home to roost.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:18 pmWhat mission?
Dems haven’t forgotten about national security that quickly, have they?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:18 pmWhich aspect, exactly, of “National Security” is our military presence in Iraq securing?
Leaders on the ground have disclosed that the mission is no longer one for the military. When are you going to catch up with the rest of the Country (world)?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:23 pmWhich aspect, exactly, of “National Security†is our military presence in Iraq securing?
This is a war on terror. Zarqawi was recently killed. It was not good for our national security to kill Zarqawi?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:26 pmZarqawi wasn’t a threat until we went into Iraq.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:30 pmZarqawi wasn’t a threat until we went into Iraq.
He was there before we got there. I doubt he would have given up terror and would have become a shoe salesman had we not gone in. He was previously trained in Afghanistan.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:32 pmHe only joined Al-Queda and gained credibility after our invasion of Iraq. Al-Queda has strengthened since the begining of the “War on Terror”. You should be able to discern that the wrong tactics are being used when your enemies are only getting stronger and the number of terror attacks increase greatly the more you “stay the course”.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:40 pmIf there is a soldier out there that needs armor and can’t get it, his family should chip in a get it for him.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 7:04 pm
If a soldier needs X and can’t get it, his family should chip in and get it for him, whether it’s armor, proper medical treatment, a uniform, or a weapon to fight with.
Good going, Mr. Big, you just excused the Department of Defense from all their responsibilities towards the troops. Nice.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:46 pm“He’s disruptive, dishonest, and keeps repeating the same crap day after day…”
I may be wrong, but I think this one may be a “true believer” and the only way to show them the light is to engage them point by point.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:47 pmAl-Queda has strengthened since the begining of the “War on Terrorâ€.
You sure about that? 2/3 of the leadership of al qaeda have been captured or killed. They used to be a strong central organization, with a state sposor in Afghanstan. Now they are a weaker group depending on al qaeda sympathizer wannabees, like Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:49 pmyou just excused the Department of Defense from all their responsibilities towards the troops. Nice.
I thought I saw a post in here recently that said defense spending is way up?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:50 pmI thought I saw a post in here recently that said defense spending is way up?
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
Which is another reason not to excuse the lack of proper body armor and make it the family’s responsiblity instead.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:52 pmTheir plan has always been to become a de-Centralized organization with cells working independently. Sorry, but they are right where they want to be.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:53 pmWhich is another reason not to excuse the lack of proper body armor and make it the family’s responsiblity instead.
If there’s an isolated case where a soldier doesn’t have body armor, the family of course should provide it.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:59 pmTheir plan has always been to become a de-Centralized organization with cells working independently. Sorry, but they are right where they want to be.
Their plan has been to attack American interests all around the world. Unfortunatly Democrats want to shrink from that threat. They have always had cells. They are in 60 countries. Yet now their leader is on the run, and 2/3 of their leadership is gone. And they havn’t been very effective attacking on our soil since 9/11.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:02 pmIf it was good for national security to kill Zarqawi, why did the Bush administration turn down three separate requests by the Pentagon to kill him in the months leading up to invasion?
If true, it’s because they were working with the United Nations trying to get another resolution at the time. Attacking Iraq before a resoultion would have been a provocation. Whoops, I just fed ferel pig Bluedog.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:04 pmWhat is this “Stay the Course” of which you speak?
August 17th, 2006 at 8:04 pm#88: Mr Tiny; I suppose you think the soldiers should buy their own ammunition and grenades too?
August 17th, 2006 at 8:24 pm#92, what would you care? Libs like you would cut the defense budget to nothing.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:28 pmHi Uncle Ho. Wow, this Mr Big can find a way to excuse anything the right does. Amazing!
August 17th, 2006 at 8:38 pm#92, what would you care? Libs like you would cut the defense budget to nothing.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
You mean as opposed to squandering the defense budget to nothing?
August 17th, 2006 at 8:39 pmI thought I saw a post in here recently that said defense spending is way up?
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
Defense spending is way up. But not for things we need. We’re spending to pay for the war, nothing more.
Its costs money to use troops as live bait you know.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:41 pmRight now, considering all the people we’re pissing off in the world, we’re gonna need about 500 of those new F-22s just to keep the UN off our shores.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:44 pmHummph. I don’t see that big chunk of dough in there anywhere that Bush said would be needed to help rebuild Lebanon.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:45 pmMr Tiny-brain: It was Eisenhower(R) who warned about the military-industrial complex. Witness the massive waste and fraud -$40 BILLION in Iraq spending can NOT be accounted for. Eisenhower said that every dollar spent on bombs and tanks is money not caring for our sick and poor. Every ship and plane bought could build schools and hospitals. Try to figure that out —DUMBASS!!
August 17th, 2006 at 8:46 pmHiya Zooey, where you been?
Comment by Ho Chi Minh
Working. Pacific Time woes, always the last one to the party!
August 17th, 2006 at 9:01 pmI’m about to go out to dinner with a friend. I’ll check back later. Enjoy!
Hey! Mr. Douchebag. The PEOPLE REST!
August 17th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
hmmm…link didn’t come thru…it still stands, though, Mr. Douchebag…
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1130-28.htm
August 17th, 2006 at 11:24 pmYo little me!!
Read the WHOLE bill next time. Examine for posion pills. Like armor attached with proposals for matches to torch the Constitution… idiot.
Yeah the others are trolls, not you.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:33 pm#100 Ho Chi Minh: Correctamundo. Aside from all the hospitals and schools we could build (not only here, but all over the world), think of all the new innovations and technologies we could develop. But when we succomb to the military-industrial complex, all we get is empty promises of security all the while Bushco and friends are concentrating all the money and power into a nice, neatly wrapped little present to themselves. We’re nothing but shit to them.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:35 pmWell all I can say is THANK GOD GWB is my President and not John Kerry!!
/sarcasm off
Actually, I believe Soupy Sales would’ve make a more competent leader.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:42 pmI have more respect for Pee Wee’s Playhouse than I do for George Bush’s Whitehouse.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:45 pmI have more respect for Pee Wee’s Playhouse than I do for George Bush’s Whitehouse.
Comment by Mr. Evil
Just don’t touch anything…
August 17th, 2006 at 11:57 pm#61 Mr. Big wrote:”…I don’t care what his excuse is. You’re just repeating talking points here. The fact is funding for body armor was contained in that bill, and Kerry voted against it. There’s no way to spin it…”
“Kerry voted against funding body armor” is also just repeating a talking point. How about spinning it like this?: Bush threatened to VETO a bill that would have provided funding for body armor. We could take Bush to task for blocking funding of body armor as much as we can take Kerry to task.
August 18th, 2006 at 7:10 am#105 Mr Eveil; sadly true.
August 18th, 2006 at 7:12 amA small company devised a kit to insert into the standard military helmet which would reduce head injuries.
People with sons, daughters, husbands and brothers in Iraq started buying the kits and shipping them to their loved ones.
The Pentagon came out and said the kits could not be installed by anyone unless they were used by everyone.
The kit costs 60 bucks. The Pentagon says they cant afford it. They can send 1.5 billion a year of tanks, rockets, aircraft to Israel, but cant afford a measly 1 million to help prevent head injuries. What an outfit.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:13 amHere’s your credit card, America. Oh, By the By, you already owe about 23,000 on it.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:34 amThat’s one credit card for you, one for your spouse, one for each of your children.
Not one per household.
For the family of four, you’re almost 100 grand in the hole.
Heckuva job you’re doin there Georgie, Dickie, Donnie…
#111 - this army fights with the crappy equipment it has, not the decent equipment it needs. A hearty up yours from Don & Co.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:36 am“Deficit” is negative balance to the government’s budget per year (like “surplus”). “Debt” is the proper word for describing totals
August 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pmyou think that is bad? Read this link:
http://www.usatoday.com/ printedition/ news/ 20060803/ 1a_coverart03.art_dom.htm
August 18th, 2006 at 2:26 pm1.3 trillion huh? I could pay that back say 50,000 a year Id have to work for 26 million years! Go for it
August 18th, 2006 at 4:05 pmThe fiscal policy of this current “adminsitration” is much too liberal for my taste.
Borrow and squander policies merely sell our grandchildren to communist China at cut rate prices.
.
The whole rotten lot in Washington and the CFR should do the right thing and commit ritual suicide on national television. That’s what I would call entertainment.
Peace
August 18th, 2006 at 4:06 pmIf the saying is true that “continuing to do something the same way over and over” and expect different results is a sign of Insanity, Then Bush must be insane for staying the course and expecting different results. We’re getting our asses kicked in Iraq and it’s costing a lot of blood and fortune, will somebody please call in the people with the white coats.
August 18th, 2006 at 11:25 pm[…] go to source/story>> Think Progress » CBO Forecasts ‘Staying the Course’ In Iraq Would Increase Deficit By $1.3 Trillion Over Next Decade […]
August 19th, 2006 at 3:45 pmPayday Loans No Fax
Bright promoters of the renowned Louisville Courier Journal might gain approval for hassle-free no faxing payday loans for $1800 even with lousy credit, it is easy to submit you application on your computer right now for a no faxing payday loan.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:55 amHealth Insurance Gulf Breeze Insurance Flood Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pmCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 pmApproval Loans
Lasalle Business Credit
April 13th, 2008 at 8:13 am