Stimulus cost more than Iraq

Avatar for jbgattuso
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Stimulus cost more than Iraq
55
Tue, 08-24-2010 - 9:46am
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
Tue, 08-24-2010 - 11:25am
ITA!

~OPAL~

~OPAL~   onoz_omg2.gif OMG ONOZ image by KILLER_BOB11694

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
Tue, 08-24-2010 - 11:26am
The facts and figures speak for themselves! Good post.

~OPAL~

~OPAL~   onoz_omg2.gif OMG ONOZ image by KILLER_BOB11694

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Tue, 08-24-2010 - 11:26am
Yes, you make excellent points. The care that our vets are going to need will far exceed the cost of the stimulus. I wonder why that wasn't pointed out in the article? Of course, I'm sure that point won't be acknowledged by some.
Community Leader
Registered: 09-14-1997
Tue, 08-24-2010 - 11:32am
I knew there was more to the story that the original

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Tue, 08-24-2010 - 11:38am
When it comes from certain sources, that's a given.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Tue, 08-24-2010 - 4:33pm

"I am wondering if people really believe that the stimulus was magic and would *poof* make the economy all better."


Obama did claim the stimulus would stabilize unemployment within months and we'd see normalized economic growth by the end of 2009. When that failed to happen he revised normal economic growth to the end of 2010. But here we are at the end of August and he's not made any progress in the area of unemployment yet, much less the economy overall. He claimed it and timing were so critical that he

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Tue, 08-24-2010 - 4:38pm

"I don't believe the stimulus is a "failed" program, but I do believe that the money allocated was far too small to make a quick turn-around in the economy."


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-01-2010
Wed, 08-25-2010 - 3:38am

I'm curious as to your take on it.

No doubt the stimulus costs are high, but when quoting the CBO figures re: the US's involvement in the Iraq war it appears that he did not take into account other very real costs of the war in Iraq such as care for injured and disabled veterans, which are considerable.

Also, I noticed that he seems to have left off that the US will be paying quite a bit re: the war in the years to come in terms of reconstruction, the troops still there, etc..

I'm not sure why he'd neglect to mention such costs. Do you think that was on purpose, that he assumed readers wouldn't notice?

Personally, I don't think he forgot about such costs, given that apparently he's quite good at his job (ex. in 2008 was named Conservative Journalist of the Year for 2008 by CPAC), but maybe?

Have you heard from US conservatives about the article, and if so, were they offended that costs such as future care and support for injured Iraq veterans was not deemed a cost of the war? Here both liberals and conservatives would be disgusted if someone tried to pull that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-01-2010
Wed, 08-25-2010 - 3:49am

I have to admit, I was kind of surprised to see so much left off of what the author considered to encompass the costs of the US involvement in the war in Iraq.

I'm curious now as to who was his intended audience, because apparently he's a pretty clever guy.

For ex., Americans wouldn't forget or dismiss the costs of caring for injured soldiers, for example, would they? Whether they be conservative or liberal, something like that is too important to dismiss.

Surely there are better ways to make his point that the stimulus is a lot of money?

I'd really love to hear from conservatives on the board re: their take on that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Wed, 08-25-2010 - 11:17am

bwahahahaha....I got a few words past that, to this:

"the message being peddled by lefties"...I know a closed mind pandering to fools when I see one.

Deborah