Poll: 71 percent think Iraq spending hurts economy

[Saguaro]

(CNN) -- More than 7 out of 10 Americans think government spending on the war in Iraq is partly responsible for the economic troubles in the United States, according to results of a recent poll.

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last weekend, 71 percent said they think U.S. spending in Iraq is a reason for the nation's poor economy. Twenty-eight percent said they didn't think so.

The weekend poll, timed to coincide with the Iraq war's fifth anniversary, also showed little U.S. support for the conflict. Fewer than one in three respondents -- 32 percent -- said they support the war, while 66 percent said they oppose it.

Sixty-one percent of those polled said the next president should remove most U.S. troops from Iraq "within a few months of taking office."

Only 36 percent of those polled said the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over -- down from 68 percent in March 2003, when the war began.

The poll surveyed 1,019 adult Americans from March 14 to 16.

The economy question ties together the nation's two dominant political issues in a presidential election year -- the Iraq war, which enters its sixth year on Wednesday, and a faltering U.S. economy that most Americans believe is in recession.

In a Washington Post editorial column earlier this month, a pair of leading economists projected that the Iraq war will wind up costing the U.S. government about $3 trillion.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and Columbia University professor who chaired President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, and Linda J. Bilmes, a former chief financial officer at the Commerce Department who now teaches at Harvard University, wrote the column.

They said the combination of the war's cost and a Bush-backed tax cut led to deficit borrowing, and they predicted the economic fallout of that spending would result in the nation's largest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

"Others will have to work out the geopolitics, but the economics here are clear," the pair wrote. "Ending the war, or at least moving rapidly to wind it down, would yield major economic dividends."

A White House spokesman said the war had cost the U.S. $406.2 billion through December 2007. The spokesman said the economists "throw everything in the kitchen sink" into the study, including costs like interest on the national debt, and called the projection "exaggerated."

And President Bush, speaking on NBC's "Today" last month, disputed the notion that the war was negatively affecting the economy.

"I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs ... because we're buying equipment and people are working," he said. "I think this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy's adjusting."

Most economists say the United States has not officially entered a recession -- which is commonly defined as negative economic growth for two or more consecutive quarters. But some economists disagree, and a recent poll suggested that nearly three out of four Americans -- 74 percent -- think the country already is in a recession.

Nationally, home foreclosures are up as the subprime lending market continues to struggle -- with 223,000 reported last month, compared with less than 140,000 in February 2007.

U.S. employers have cut 85,000 jobs so far this year -- the most in four years -- according to the U.S. Labor Department.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/poll.iraq.economy/index.html

[Wabash]

College History 101

I was taught that a war stimulates an economy. My professor stated that we need a war about every 7 years to bolster the economy...

I think what we need to do is get a whole lot more folks active in this war effort. Similar to the CCC camps and the TVA, govt. projects to get people back to work. Making munitions, tanks, armored vehicles, food processing and packaging and untold other jobs.....
Create jobs in America and help us get done in Iraq sooner.
Maybe some of these liberal posters could stop bitching and apply to the govt. to go over to teach in Iraq. There are many jobs that need doing.......

[Capitalist]

(CNN) -- More than 7 out of 10 Americans think government spending on the war in Iraq is partly responsible for the economic troubles in the United States, according to results of a recent poll.

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last weekend, 71 percent said they think U.S. spending in Iraq is a reason for the nation's poor economy. Twenty-eight percent said they didn't think so.

The weekend poll, timed to coincide with the Iraq war's fifth anniversary, also showed little U.S. support for the conflict. Fewer than one in three respondents -- 32 percent -- said they support the war, while 66 percent said they oppose it.

Sixty-one percent of those polled said the next president should remove most U.S. troops from Iraq "within a few months of taking office."

Only 36 percent of those polled said the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over -- down from 68 percent in March 2003, when the war began.

The poll surveyed 1,019 adult Americans from March 14 to 16.

The economy question ties together the nation's two dominant political issues in a presidential election year -- the Iraq war, which enters its sixth year on Wednesday, and a faltering U.S. economy that most Americans believe is in recession.

In a Washington Post editorial column earlier this month, a pair of leading economists projected that the Iraq war will wind up costing the U.S. government about $3 trillion.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and Columbia University professor who chaired President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, and Linda J. Bilmes, a former chief financial officer at the Commerce Department who now teaches at Harvard University, wrote the column.

They said the combination of the war's cost and a Bush-backed tax cut led to deficit borrowing, and they predicted the economic fallout of that spending would result in the nation's largest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

"Others will have to work out the geopolitics, but the economics here are clear," the pair wrote. "Ending the war, or at least moving rapidly to wind it down, would yield major economic dividends."

A White House spokesman said the war had cost the U.S. $406.2 billion through December 2007. The spokesman said the economists "throw everything in the kitchen sink" into the study, including costs like interest on the national debt, and called the projection "exaggerated."

And President Bush, speaking on NBC's "Today" last month, disputed the notion that the war was negatively affecting the economy.

"I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs ... because we're buying equipment and people are working," he said. "I think this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy's adjusting."

Most economists say the United States has not officially entered a recession -- which is commonly defined as negative economic growth for two or more consecutive quarters. But some economists disagree, and a recent poll suggested that nearly three out of four Americans -- 74 percent -- think the country already is in a recession.

Nationally, home foreclosures are up as the subprime lending market continues to struggle -- with 223,000 reported last month, compared with less than 140,000 in February 2007.

U.S. employers have cut 85,000 jobs so far this year -- the most in four years -- according to the U.S. Labor Department.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/poll.iraq.economy/index.html


Well now we know that 70% have no fucking clue.

Now I would say that if the extra money was just not spent, then it would help the economy, but since it would just be wasted on entitlements anyway, it is a net non effect.

[Wabash]

Well now we know that 70% have no fucking clue.

Now I would say that if the extra money was just not spent, then it would help the economy, but since it would just be wasted on entitlements anyway, it is a net non effect.

:paclap:paclap:paclap:paclap

Now THERE is Truth!!!!

[toxic]

College History 101

I was taught that a war stimulates an economy. My professor stated that we need a war about every 7 years to bolster the economy...

I think what we need to do is get a whole lot more folks active in this war effort. Similar to the CCC camps and the TVA, govt. projects to get people back to work. Making munitions, tanks, armored vehicles, food processing and packaging and untold other jobs.....
Create jobs in America and help us get done in Iraq sooner.
Maybe some of these liberal posters could stop bitching and apply to the govt. to go over to teach in Iraq. There are many jobs that need doing.......

It may have helped the economy when the aircraft, ships and weapons systems were being built in the USA. Since those have been offshored, it is just another drag on the Trade Deficit.

[Wabash]

It may have helped the economy when the aircraft, ships and weapons systems were being built in the USA. Since those have been offshored, it is just another drag on the Trade Deficit.

Well, the govt. could set up the CCC type projects....question is, are there enough Americans that want to work or just bitch...

[Capitalist]

It may have helped the economy when the aircraft, ships and weapons systems were being built in the USA. Since those have been offshored, it is just another drag on the Trade Deficit.

So your assertion is that our entire arsenal is made off shore?

You have any links to back that up?

[Viki]

I'm no economist but I was taught too that the reason we got out of the depression wasn't the liberal policies of FDR - it was WWII.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Well now we know that 70% have no fucking clue.It is you who is ignorant and clueless. We can afford to spend so much on a stupid and wasteful war. Here are some real economists that show you why you are so ignorant on this issue. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN12513456
But $500 billion later, experts worry about the impact on the world's biggest economy, already facing a crippling housing crisis.

"The short-term economic consequences of the war have been manageable and modest. But the long-term consequences will be substantial," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com.

Much of the problem, economists say, is that every month of combat adds more than $10 billion to a U.S. debt that now tops $9 trillion.

"Extra government debt is undoubtedly a bad thing for our economic performance in the long run," said Doug Elmendorf, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former economist for the Federal Reserve Board.

Other expenses -- such as health care costs for the poor and a new prescription drug plan for the elderly -- combine to increase the government's debt at a much faster rate than the Iraq war, Elmendorf noted.

'STOP DIGGING'

"The rule when one is in a hole is to stop digging," Elmendorf said of debt and war costs.

Robert Reischauer, head of the Urban Institute and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said the benefits of war spending for the U.S. economy had been "muted" because so much of the money is spent on goods and services abroad. That, he said, was "stimulating economies elsewhere, not the least being the economies of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."

[Yellowdogtexan]

I'm no economist but I was taught too that the reason we got out of the depression wasn't the liberal policies of FDR - it was WWII.The trouble is that so much of the money wasted on the stupid Iraq war is being spent overseas and so the US economy is not getting any benefit from such spending. This is for the article cited above Robert Reischauer, head of the Urban Institute and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said the benefits of war spending for the U.S. economy had been "muted" because so much of the money is spent on goods and services abroad. That, he said, was "stimulating economies elsewhere, not the least being the economies of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi ArabiaWe are helping other countries economies and not our own with this wasteful spending

[Wabash]

I'm no economist but I was taught too that the reason we got out of the depression wasn't the liberal policies of FDR - it was WWII.
Exactly!

It is you who is ignorant and clueless. We can afford to spend so much on a stupid and wasteful war. Here are some real economists that show you why you are so ignorant on this issue. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN12513456
We spent PLENTY rebuilding Italy, France, England, Poland and even Germany, after WWII...was that wasteful too?
The trouble is that so much of the money wasted on the stupid Iraq war is being spent overseas and so the US economy is not getting any benefit from such spending. This is for the article cited above We are helping other countries economies and not our own with this wasteful spending
I maintain that we are helping our country byemploying firms like Blackwater, Haliburton , tank, plane and munitions mfg. and vicariously all the folks related to those companies and those workers who are making a living doing that....that's only a few for example....and the trickle down is enormous!
Libs always think war is stupid, because they think retarded! You guys said the same thing during WWI, WWII, Korea, even back to the Revolution! Which one of your ancestors was bitching about war in 1770-1776 doggie????

[nixon]

Exactly!


We spent PLENTY rebuilding Italy, France, England, Poland and even Germany, after WWII...was that wasteful too?

I maintain that we are helping our country byemploying firms like Blackwater, Haliburton , tank, plane and munitions mfg. and vicariously all the folks related to those companies and those workers who are making a living doing that....that's only a few for example....and the trickle down is enormous!
Libs always think war is stupid, because they think retarded! You guys said the same thing during WWI, WWII, Korea, evren back to the Revolution!So with that in mind, Conservatives think war is smart because their way of thinking is advanced? Please clarify for me. Nixon.

[Trueblue]

College History 101

I was taught that a war stimulates an economy. My professor stated that we need a war about every 7 years to bolster the economy...

I think what we need to do is get a whole lot more folks active in this war effort. Similar to the CCC camps and the TVA, govt. projects to get people back to work. Making munitions, tanks, armored vehicles, food processing and packaging and untold other jobs.....
Create jobs in America and help us get done in Iraq sooner.
Maybe some of these liberal posters could stop bitching and apply to the govt. to go over to teach in Iraq. There are many jobs that need doing.......

So why exactly is it that we are having these problems?

Maybe nobody told the economy that it was supposed to get better.

Well now we know that 70% have no fucking clue.

Now I would say that if the extra money was just not spent, then it would help the economy, but since it would just be wasted on entitlements anyway, it is a net non effect.

Why is it better to bomb than to give somebody some groceries? :

It may have helped the economy when the aircraft, ships and weapons systems were being built in the USA. Since those have been offshored, it is just another drag on the Trade Deficit.

:clap

I'm no economist but I was taught too that the reason we got out of the depression wasn't the liberal policies of FDR - it was WWII.

The policies of FDR helped tremendously, but WWII was the final boost.

Here's the thing-both WWII and FDR's programs were government spending.

War doesn't automatically generate revenue. War generates money because government spends it, just the same as entitlement or job programs.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This next point is way too advanced for the conservatives to understand but the war in Iraq has actualy destablized the region and that instability is the cause of $5 to $10 of the current price of a barrel of oil.http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN12513456Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who says the Iraq war could end up costing $3 trillion when factoring in combat and other long-term related costs, also blames the war for part of the run-up in world oil prices.

At the beginning of March 2003, just before the fighting began, U.S. crude oil was $37.21 a barrel. This week, that same barrel hit a record $110.

The war accounted for $5 to $10 of oil's higher price, Stiglitz told Congress.bush sold the war as a way to stablize oil prices and the exact opposite has happened

[Yellowdogtexan]

We spent PLENTY rebuilding Italy, France, England, Poland and even Germany, after WWII...was that wasteful too?Just when I thought that you not say anything more stupid, you surprise me. The Marshall Plan was not intended to stimulate the US economy but to help the countries destroyed in WWII so that these countries could be effective allies against the Soviet Union and its allies and because helping these countries were the right thing to do. You are clueless on economic issues.

Only an idiot or someone who thinks that there really are still WMDs in Iraq would argue that the Marshall plan was designed to stimulate the US economy or that sending money to overseas firms helps the US economy. Remember, Halliburton has moved its headquaters overseas and is sheltering its income from US taxes.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Senator Obama has tied the problems in our economy to the wasteful and silly spending in Iraq. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/20/obama-ties-economic-woes-_n_92591.html. — Barack Obama blamed the Iraq war for higher oil prices and skyrocketing debt Thursday as he sought to tie the unpopular war to the slumping economy in working-class West Virginia.

The Democratic hopeful is trying to cut into Hillary Rodham Clinton's base in West Virginia. The state's demographics appear to favor Clinton, whose support is strongest among older white voters and blue-collar workers.

"When you're spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you're paying a price for this war," Obama said. "When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you're paying a price for this war."

By linking the economy to the war, Obama is playing to his perceived strength as someone who spoke out against the war as a state lawmaker in Illinois. He has criticized Clinton for only recently opposing the war and said Thursday that her criticism of Republican John McCain's war policies lacks teeth.

"Her point would have been more compelling had she not joined Senator McCain in making the tragically ill-considered decision to vote for the Iraq war in the first place," Obama said to cheers.

It was the third consecutive day that Obama set aside his usual stump speech and delivered a more focused issue speech. He discussed race relations on Tuesday and the foreign policy consequences of the Iraq war Wednesday.

Obama has won more states than Clinton, leads in the popular vote and holds a nearly insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. But neither candidate can clinch the nomination without help from superdelegates, the party leaders who are not bound by any primary or caucus and are free to vote for whomever they choose. Clinton hopes a strong finish in the remaining primaries will persuade superdelegates to back her in a close race despite the delegate shortfall.

West Virginia holds its primary May 13. The economy is a key issue in West Virginia and Obama aides concede that Clinton is expected to perform well here.

"For what folks in this state have been spending on the Iraq war, we could be giving health care to nearly 450,000 of your neighbors, hiring nearly 30,000 new elementary school teachers, and making college more affordable for over 300,000 students," Obama said.

Obama was introduced at the University of Charleston by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who played up Obama's blue-collar credentials and his familiarity with his home state's coal industry.

"He's a man who's worked for everything he's achieved. That's something I can't say," Rockefeller joked. He said Obama can see the world "through the eyes of those who are in the trenches everyday struggling to make ends meet and who are fighting to keep their families together."Again, the war in Iraw made the region less safe and that instability is responsible for a portion of the higher oil prices.

[Saguaro]

Since the economy is based on supply and demand :

Military Oil Consumption in Iraq

According to the DLA facts as of March 2006 the US military oil consumption in Iraq was more than 2.8 billion gallons, which makes 67 million barrels.

According to Colonel Rohrer, Director of Bulk Fuels, American forces in Iraq use more than 1.3 million gallons (31 kb/d) of fuel each day.[5] According to an Atlantic Monthly article,[6] however, it is 1.7 million gallons of fuel a day (40 kb/d).

Some of that fuel goes to naval vessels and aircraft, but “each of the 150,000 soldiers on the ground consumes roughly nine gallons of fuel a day. And that figure has been rising.”[7]
A recent presentation makes it clear that 1.3 million gallon figure, in fact, is only for JP-8.[8] Therefore 1.7 million gallon figure (even if it is 2005 estimate) seems more appropriate.

All fuel flowing in to Iraq travels by one of three routes. Fuel originating in Kuwait, Turkey, or Jordan is trucked, under DESC contract, along one of these routes and delivered to one of three main hubs in Iraq, western, southern and northern hub.

http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2006/06/military-oil-consumption-in.html

[Capitalist]

I'm no economist but I was taught too that the reason we got out of the depression wasn't the liberal policies of FDR - it was WWII.

That would be accurate. As a matter of fact the heavy government intervention started by Hoover and taken to the next (re:socialist) level by FDR may have made the depression last even longer.

[Capitalist]

It is you who is ignorant and clueless. We can afford to spend so much on a stupid and wasteful war. Here are some real economists that show you why you are so ignorant on this issue. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN12513456

Go take your oldtimers disease medications asswipe.

[Capitalist]

The trouble is that so much of the money wasted on the stupid Iraq war is being spent overseas and so the US economy is not getting any benefit from such spending. This is for the article cited above We are helping other countries economies and not our own with this wasteful spending

Another major problem is that you don't have a fucking clue.

[Capitalist]

So why exactly is it that we are having these problems?

Maybe nobody told the economy that it was supposed to get better.



Why is it better to bomb than to give somebody some groceries? :



:clap



The policies of FDR helped tremendously, but WWII was the final boost.

Here's the thing-both WWII and FDR's programs were government spending.

War doesn't automatically generate revenue. War generates money because government spends it, just the same as entitlement or job programs.


Yeah but the money goes to people producing something other than more slackers.

That is a big difference.

Hoover/FDR policies may well have made the Depression last longer and go deeper than it would had they actually let the market decide.

[sparks]

I think Cappy's especially irritable today cause he knows the Reps are history in Washington.

[Capitalist]

This next point is way too advanced for the conservatives to understand but the war in Iraq has actualy destablized the region and that instability is the cause of $5 to $10 of the current price of a barrel of oil.http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN12513456bush sold the war as a way to stablize oil prices and the exact opposite has happened

Of course it is, but is it your assertion that the area was stable before?

[Capitalist]

I think Cappy's especially irritable today cause he knows the Reps are history in Washington.

So do you care to make a substantial monetary wager on that?

Beside if you run all us capitalists out of the country who the fuck is going to pay for your bullshit slacker programs?

[Capitalist]

PS - I am not at all irritated I love this shit!

[sparks]

Yeah but the money goes to people producing something other than more slackers.

That is a big difference.

Hoover/FDR policies may well have made the Depression last longer and go deeper than it would had they actually let the market decide.

Actually it was probably due to decisions the Fed made in dealing with the economic issues of the day. Hoover promoted isolationism and cut off free trade policies and money became tighter as well. Other countries retaliated by raising tariffs too.

Towards the end of his term, Hoover did start some government spending towards social issues, but he was probably gritting his teeth over it!

Hooverville's were very popular back in the day.

[sparks]

The only reason WW2 pulled us out of the depression was because government subsidized private industry to support the war effort. And the products were made in the U.S. then, instead of China.

[sparks]

So do you care to make a substantial monetary wager on that?

Beside if you run all us capitalists out of the country who the fuck is going to pay for your bullshit slacker programs?

I'll take my chances! :)

Now, be gone with you! :rofl

[Capitalist]

Actually it was probably due to decisions the Fed made in dealing with the economic issues of the day. Hoover promoted isolationism and cut off free trade policies and money became tighter as well. Other countries retaliated by raising tariffs too.

Towards the end of his term, Hoover did start some government spending towards social issues, but he was probably gritting his teeth over it!

Hooverville's were very popular back in the day.

Read my links in the above posts, your premise is very incorrect.

[Capitalist]

The only reason WW2 pulled us out of the depression was because government subsidized private industry to support the war effort. And the products were made in the U.S. then, instead of China.

The reason they had to do that is because for 13 years they made a mess of the US economy trying to control it like the Soviets used to.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Go take your oldtimers disease medications asswipe.You are clueless on economic issues. You are unable to deal with the facts and so has to display your ignorance to the world.

Again real economists and real experts also agree that the Iraq war is hurting the US economy. The money is being spent overseas and so is not benefiting the US Economy. As Senator Obama has noted, the money that we have wasted and such money has been wasted could have done a great deal of good over here. In addition, the national debt has grown under bush and that national debt is a drag on the economy.

[Capitalist]

You are clueless on economic issues. You are unable to deal with the facts and so has to display your ignorance to the world.

Again real economists and real experts also agree that the Iraq war is hurting the US economy. The money is being spent overseas and so is not benefiting the US Economy. As Senator Obama has noted, the money that we have wasted and such money has been wasted could have done a great deal of good over here. In addition, the national debt has grown under bush and that national debt is a drag on the economy.

Shut up you old tired as mother f**ker...

You are already most of the way to your eternal dirt nap, hurry up already!

[Yellowdogtexan]

Read my links in the above posts, your premise is very incorrect.You cited nothing and provide no links. You are a legend in your own mind but you are ignorant on economics and have not provided any authority on this thread for any of your rather silly and wrong claims.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Shut up you old tired as mother f**ker...It is your ignorance that is amusing. Again, back up your feeble but wrong assertions. You have provided no authority and you are clearly ignorant on economic theory and issues.

BTW, a link is a cite to authority. You have not provided one link on this thread and all we have to rely on is the feeble assertions of an idiot who is clueless as to economics.

[Capitalist]

It is your ignorance that is amusing. Again, back up your feeble but wrong assertions. You have provided no authority and you are clearly ignorant on economic theory and issues.

BTW, a link is a cite to authority. You have not provided one link on this thread and all we have to rely on is the feeble assertions of an idiot who is clueless as to economics.

You know what , you sorry old fart asswipe, the only thing you know how to do is proclaim superiority and expect that to stand.

Go fuck yourself and go to temple to ask for forgiveness.

[sparks]

The reason they had to do that is because for 13 years they made a mess of the US economy trying to control it like the Soviets used to.

You are clueless on economic issues. You are unable to deal with the facts and so has to display your ignorance to the world.

Again real economists and real experts also agree that the Iraq war is hurting the US economy. The money is being spent overseas and so is not benefiting the US Economy. As Senator Obama has noted, the money that we have wasted and such money has been wasted could have done a great deal of good over here. In addition, the national debt has grown under bush and that national debt is a drag on the economy.

Especially when Airbus is getting our government contracts to build planes instead of our own people here in the U.S.!

[sparks]

You know what , you sorry old fart asswipe, the only thing you know how to do is proclaim superiority and expect that to stand.

Go fuck yourself and go to temple to ask for forgiveness.

And it would appear that when you start losing an argument you resort to name calling.

[Capitalist]

Especially when Airbus is getting our government contracts to build planes instead of our own people here in the U.S.!

Do you know why that happened?

My guess is that , as always, you are clueless.

[sparks]

Do you know why that happened?

My guess is that , as always, you are clueless.

The fact is that in a global economy the old antiquated idea of war sustaining our economy in the U.S. is obsolete.

[Yellowdogtexan]

And it would appear that when you start losing an argument you resort to name calling.Cappy is indeed clueless about economic issues. He claims to have provided links and authority for his positions but all we have are some lame and rather silly statements from a layperson who is clueless about economics. I trust the real economists and studies that I have cited on this thread to the delusions and unsupported opinons of a layperson like cappy

[Capitalist]

The fact is that in a global economy the old antiquated idea of war sustaining our economy in the U.S. is obsolete.

So you don't know why it happened , do you?

Not to mention you won't find a single post where I am for the war because of what ti does to the economy one way or the other.

The war is neccessary for reasons that are independent of the economy. That is my opinoion and you are free to argue that point, not a point I have not made.

[sparks]

So you don't know why it happened , do you?

Not to mention you won't find a single post where I am for the war because of what ti does to the economy one way or the other.

The war is neccessary for reasons that are independent of the economy. That is my opinoion and you are free to argue that point, not a point I have not made.

Oh yeah...security of our country, right? :rofl

And...how is it again we're more secure here in the U.S.?

[Yellowdogtexan]

The war is neccessary for reasons that are independent of the economy. That is my opinoion and you are free to argue that point, not a point I have not made.Are you one of those idiots and fools who think that there are still WMDs in Iraq? Saddam was no threat to the US or our allies. The war in Iraq was based on lies and have made us less safe.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I do not agree with Ben Stein on many issues but he does know some economics. Here is a simple explanation as to why the huge deficits that we have run due to the wasteful and needless spending in Iraq is hurting the US economy. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09every.html?ref=businessMoreover, immense federal deficits in modern life are financed largely by foreign buyers of our debt. This means that the American taxpayer must work a good chunk of the year to send money to China, Japan, the petro-states and other buyers of United States debt. In effect, we become their peons.

By flooding the world with debt, we in effect beg foreigners to take our dollars, and this leads to a lower value of the dollar and a higher cost of imports, including oil. If you feel pain filling up the tank, you can partly thank those tax cuts. If you feel the sting of inflation, you can partly thank the supply siders. Deficits matter.By financing this stupid and needless war with deficit spending, we are hurting the US economy. The dollar has declined in value for good reasons including the fact that we can not expect foriegn countries to continue to fund our deficits. The money spent on Iraq would have reduced our deficits and national debt by a decent amount and if we were not in Iraq, our economy would be in better shape.

[sparks]

I do not agree with Ben Stein on many issues but he does know some economics. Here is a simple explanation as to why the huge deficits that we have run due to the wasteful and needless spending in Iraq is hurting the US economy. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09every.html?ref=businessBy financing this stupid and needless war with deficit spending, we are hurting the US economy. The dollar has declined in value for good reasons including the fact that we can not expect foriegn countries to continue to fund our deficits. The money spent on Iraq would have reduced our deficits and national debt by a decent amount and if we were not in Iraq, our economy would be in better shape.

And with the disruption of late in China it makes me wonder whether or not China will call our loans due.

[Saguaro]

We will have to sell America acre by acre to China if they call in our loans

[sparks]

We will have to sell America acre by acre to China if they call in our loans

Yeah we will!

[Trueblue]

That would be accurate. As a matter of fact the heavy government intervention started by Hoover and taken to the next (re:socialist) level by FDR may have made the depression last even longer.

Yeah but the money goes to people producing something other than more slackers.

That is a big difference.

Hoover/FDR policies may well have made the Depression last longer and go deeper than it would had they actually let the market decide.

Cap, there's no difference between the work done by the CCC and the work done in the munitions factories, both were work, and both were paid for by the government.

And it would appear that when you start losing an argument you resort to name calling.

Every single time.