?
Lv 6
? asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

We spent $200 billion in Iraq. Why quibble about $900 billion for the US?

It really irks me that there was little debate about spending the billions in Iraq. Yet when we want to spend money in the US, everyone calls it Socialism or handouts or welfare. Isn't our country worth more than Iraq?

Update:

Even if it was a trillion in Iraq. Why argue and spit venom about spending an equal or greater amount in the US? We need to rebuild our economy. Aren't we worth money?

17 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    10 billion a month for over 6 years, plus all the uncounted graft, waste, and theft...

    But god forbid someone who works hard, pays taxes, and hasn't ever seen the inside of a private jet should ever benefit, that would be "socialism".

    Gag.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • imaxkr
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    The official figures for Iraq and Afghanistan is $687billion as of the end of the last fiscal year. (Sept. 2008)

    So it is clear that those spouting the 'trillion' figures are either uninformed or just by into the anti-war rhetoric.

    That said, the mismanagement of those operations was simply put atrocious.

    That the spending bill that is being passed off as 'stimulus' was allowed to pass without proper debate and discussions (remember Pelosi suspended normal house procedures bypassing the committee and subcommittee discussions) borders on criminal. The excuse? It must be done quickly to get 'the economy back on track'. Yet the bill 'sat on the Presidents desk' for four days, and most spending will not take place for over a year.

    The people should be outraged that this has happened.

    But most are oblivious to what has happened and is happening.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Actually it is a direct $1.2 Trillion in Iraq (direct war funding and logistics such as leasing bases and right of way for troop supplies). There is also another indirect $1.8 Trillion that is casued by Iraq (retooling the military and medical services for wounded soldiers). There is even more "discretionary spending" in Iraq.

    edit: I oppose ALL wasteful spending ESPECIALLY the lie-based invasion of Iraq. However, if the government is going to spend like the drunks they are, spend it all domestically vs to control oil contracts for Exxon Mobil.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    EDIT you are right, bush suspended spending for our basic America, he cut money from things no other president ever has and it was not even to help our country balance a budget or get ahead in any way, it is even said bush took money that would have gone to rebuilding and repairing yher levys in Louisiana so when Katrina hit we were screwed.

    Local and state govts. are taking a day off a week to save money, state and federal parks are loosing and u r right people claiming the socialists are in control.

    Welfare needs has jumped to record levels and people who hated people who get welfare will have to decide if their family is important enough for them to swollow thei pride.

    Republicans did nothing in their last year to help our countries situation, no ideas thoughts bush just slipped out and now they just panic and complain when they should be a part of solutions, they had their chance and did nothing now they should lead follow or get out of the way.

    sorry but the iraq war is well over 1 trillon, 200 billion was just the first year.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    We spend 200 billion in a fraction of the time in Iraq... Closer to $1trillion. It's all part of the plan.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Spending money is not synonymous w/ success.

    Understand the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says the "stimulus" will fail. Most logical people would scrap the plan -- call it a sunk cost, and start over.

    Not Obama -- he pushes ahead and powers his bill on "hope". It's reckless. If it was HIS money, he would've scrapped this plan long ago.

    The fact is the money is deficit-financed...that is we're borrowing against our debt so we can spend to create some kind of artificial support. The problem is we don't know how long or deep this economic dip is going to be. If the money runs out before some expansion, we have to keep plugging the hole w/ more money. FDR ran into this problem w/ the same approach that he tried during the great depression. He was spending 10% of GDP trying to run down unemployment. What he did, according to many economists, is prolong the depression by 8 years.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Because the printing preses are getting low on paper

    .

    To print more $100 bills up on

    .

    You have been watching TV and seen those commercials that shows sheet and sheets of

    .

    $100 bills flipping by and by and by

    .

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    What irks me is how most people don't know their history. When the Roman Empire took over a country, it would use the defeated country's resources for building projects. We should be using the oil from Iraq to finance building projects in Iraq. George Bush and Obama are idiots for not doing this but what did you expect from a couple of morons who went to Ivy League Schools. If you ask me, an Ivy League Diploma is only good for wiping your rear.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    i agree but don't do harm to your own argument. the cost of iraq is much higher then that and increasing every day. not to mention the costs we can not quantify in iraq compared to returns we will get on our investments here.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    yes it is but other people seem to see a man trying to help them get this country back on the right track a threat because they blame him when their previous leader spent money and it didn't even go to them .

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.