which is worst, the cost of the Iraq war (less than $600 billion) or the Recovery Bill ($3.27 trillion)?

There seems to be a whole lot of NON-THINKING going on in these boards. Iraq a country that never should have been invaded? A country that has nothing to do with the War on Terror? I love making you ignorant liberals look stupid. Iraq is and was a perfect target for establishing democracy and stability in a region that is rife with the opposite. Islamic fundamentalism is being caused by the corruption in Muslim nations. There are no jobs, the education is terrible, living conditions are deplorable. When life is that bad, where do people turn? Religion. What does Islam say have to say about all your problems in Yemen, Oman, Iran, Pakistan, etc? That they are caused by infidels and all who are unfaithful (ie their own governments). What do you do about it? Kill the infidels and overthrow the government so that religion is in charge!

So what do we have to do? Take one of these countries and turn it around. Give them a stable government, a strong economy, and a country they can be proud of. What does that cost? Money and the lives of soldiers. Is it worth it? Yes, in the long run. If Iraq succeeds, the influence will be felt all over the Middle East (because it is one big country there and more people pass through Iraq than anywhere else in the region). A small war in Iraq/Afghanistan is MUCH better than a big war between the West an Islam, believe you me.

Now, on he spending bill? What will it do? Nothing except prolong our recovery and prevent us from recovering fully. Cut spending on social programs and unnecessary government beauracracy and pass the savings on to the people and business who can actually put the $ to good use. Maybe even start paying off the national debt (DEBT IS BAD DEBT IS BAD DEBT IS BAD)? But all that makes to much sense, and that is why you liberals will never agree to it.

The vote to go to war in Iraq was not quite unanimous, but that's pickiness, both sides voted for it because 9/11 scared the sense out of us and Bush and his entire administration wanted to scare us even more by cherry picking information and filling us with monster tales so we would go into Iraq.

We are in the financial situation we are in due to the tax losses incurred by the tax cuts Bush wanted, at the same time he ran a war.

Something intelligent leaders have never done before in any country.

The Recovery Bill is not bipartisan because if it succeeds, then even the slow would recognize that Republican policy is wrong for the country. So it must fail for them to succeed in the next election. If it doesn't they can say they didn't want it and knew it wouldn't work.

If it succeeds, then the Republican party will be made irrelevant for the foreseeable future.

No matter what the financial costs, the costs of the war must also number the over four thousand five hundred American lives lost there, plus the costs of the loss of wages and care for the thousands and thousands of wounded American vets. You can't even put a dollar amount on those dead or changed lives.

The Recovery bill is some $789 billion as I write the costs go up and down a little with each article.

Setting aside the human cost of war for the moment, and only looking at the financial costs, the bailout is obviously much, much worse. But not for me. I'm pretty old. My kids and grandkids are going to be paying this one back.

My two younger kids both supported Obama so every time I see him on TV talking about a new spending plan, I say to my kids "Hey look guys. Barry is spending more of YOUR money." For some reason, they don't think it's as funny as I do. :o)

EDIT

Romare:

You are correct. The Senate voted 98 yea, 1 nay with one absent. The only reason Obama didn't vote yea is because he was still in his political diapers, and wasn't allowed to vote.

Now, would you please connect the dots between the Iraq war and the current state of our economy as you suggest in your answer? I do a lot of reading and I've never seen that idea floated, even by the loons.

EDIT

The 77-23 vote was for the joint resolution.

I think that the Iraq war is worse, not because we spent 600 billion, but because we didn't spend enough to begin with. If you are going to take over a country, you need to do it right. The first Bush knew that, and Colin Powell did too. We went into Kuwait in 1991 and took control with overwhelming force. What did we do in 2003? In 2004? 2005? 2006? Do I need to go on? We are still finishing the job that we should have finished a long time ago.

But on the plus side, things are looking better for the Iraqis in the sense that they have limited political freedoms, can take care of their families without fear of repercussions from the Baathist party, and so on.

Do you remeber that the Pentagon admitted to losing/misplacing over 2 trillion dollars, on the 10th September 2001, you probably don't, you're not supposed to.

As for any money spent on killing tens of thousands, in an illegal war-that seems a bit more of a waste than trying to make things less desperate for those at home.

By the way, the vote to go to war in Vietnam was just about unanimous, and that is now known to have been based on a lie.

This is an example of a false choice; as if you HAVE to take one or the other.

Both are horrific in terms of the defict. You can argue the merits of both of them (maybe the Iraq War will pave the way for a more stable Middle East, maybe the Recovery Bill will pave the way to an economic recovery). Either way though, our kids and grand kids are about $4 TRILLION in the hole because of these two things.

That $600 Billion doesn't consider the costs of the war after the dead and crippled soldiers return home. Their families have either lost their main income and/or they now have an invalid to care for. Those costs are huge in money and anguish.

The Iraq war was a terrible mistake.

"The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers but here is some information from the CBO (links included). At no point does the figure 3.27 Trillion appear in the CBO web site, including the Director's blog.

If you compine the Recovery act (790B) and the TARP (350B +350B from government) We arrive at 1.5 Trillion.

Secretary Geithner also called on the FED to pony up another 600B and for private contributions of 500B

which would make the total price tag 2.6Trillion However technically 1.1 trillion does not come from taxpayers.

From a letter to Judge Gregg

"Net Effects on Output and Employment

Taking all of the short- and long-run effects into account, CBO estimates that the

legislation implies an increase in GDP relative to the agency’s baseline forecast of

between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009, between 1.1 percent

and 3.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010, between 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent by

the fourth quarter of 2011, and declining amounts in later years (see Table 1). Beyond

2014, the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between zero and 0.2 percent. This

long-run effect is slightly smaller than CBO estimated in its preliminary analysis of the

Senate stimulus legislation last week due to refinements in our methodology.

Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3

million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter

of 2010, by 0.6 million to 1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining

numbers in later years. The effect on employment is never estimated to be negative,

despite lower GDP in later years, because CBO expects that the U.S. labor market will

be at nearly full employment in the long run. The reduction in GDP is therefore

estimated to be reflected in lower wages rather than lower employment, as workers will

be less productive because the capital stock is smaller."

From a Letter To Nancy Pelosi

"February 13, 2009

Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed the conference agreement

for H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as

posted on the Web site of the House Committee on Rules. We have

enclosed two tables with this letter: one that summarizes the estimated

budgetary impacts of the legislation and another, more detailed table that

shows the budgetary effects by title. Combining both spending and revenue

effects, CBO estimates that enacting the conference agreement for H.R. 1

would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining

months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, by $134 billion in

2011, and by $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you would like further details

about this estimate, the CBO staff contact is Janet Airis.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Elmendorf

Director"

I Would rather pay the bill for the war. Supporting illegals costs us way more. I see answers of people saying 100000 lives lost? As of 2-9-09 4,244 Soldiers were lost in action. That number includes relatives of mine who died in the belief of freedom. This Recovery Bill is not a result of the war, it is the result of decades of Presidents and Congress passing laws so everyone who could not afford a home could buy one. You all blame Bush, what about blaming Carter and Clinton and Reagan also. You cant do that though. God bless the soldiers who have died and give support to those who have not.