Some Perspective on the Money wasted in Iraq.

[Stoic]

To get some perspective, here are some real-life comparisons about what $87 billion means:

$87 Billion Is More Than The Combined Total Of All State Budget Deficits In The United States.

The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help states deal with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove down state revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

$87 Billion Is Enough To Pay The 3.3 Million People Who Have Lost Jobs Under George W. Bush $26,363 Each!

The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the beginning of this year provides zero benefits to "workers who exhausted their regular, state unemployment benefits and cannot find work." All told, two-thirds of unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

$87 Billion Is More Than DOUBLE The Total Amount The Government Spends On Homeland Security.

The U.S. spends about $36 billion on homeland security. Yet, Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) wrote "America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs" for homeland security without a funding increase. [Source: Council on Foreign Relations]

$87 Billion Is 87 Times The Amount The Federal Government Spends On After School Programs.

George W. Bush proposed a budget that reduces the $1 billion for after-school programs to $600 million -- cutting off about 475,000 children from the program. [Source: The Republican-dominated House Appropriations Committee]

$87 Billion Is More Than 10 Times What The Government Spends On All Environmental Protection.

The Bush administration requested just $7.6 billion for the entire Environmental Protection Agency. This included a 32 percent cut to water quality grants, a 6 percent reduction in enforcement staff, and a 50 percent cut to land acquisition and conservation. [Source: Natural Resources Defense Council]

[madmag9999]

well this just proves my reason to be that much truer that gorge w bush is a fucking dumbass and ruind the economy in this country and drove us deper into the resession and i dont want to hear any of that bull shit that this is clintons fault becouse for the 8 years clinton was in office we were a very prospouros nation i mean sure he had is problems but the naition was doing really really well

[Lyrs]

did you plagarize that information?

[angelx03]

He did cite the references (almost).

[Stoic]

M'eh.

Another interesting tidbit, we aren't paying for this war yet, the next adminstration will be paying for it becuase Bush is going to borrow the money. Tax Cut Man Strikes Again!

[jonmartensen]

That's right, because whoever is currently in office has totalitarian control over the economy. Congress is not involved in running this country at all, no sir-e, not at all. States aren't responsible for their mismanegment of money. Oh, and everything good that happened in the past 12 years is due to the last president and everything bad that has happened in the past 12 years is due to the father/son presidential comings and goings. Everything bad that happens in the next 5 years will be due to this president, and everything good will be due to the next president (unless of course the next president is not a Democrat )



Good points though.

[MistyCaldwell]

. Everything bad that happens in the next 5 years will be due to this president, and everything good will be due to the next president (unless of course the next president is not a Democrat )
.

Sarcasm like that would mean more if the exact same complaints (about economy, foreign affairs and mis-management of money) did not occur every term by the other party. That is both republican and democrat whining...it's pretty ignorant of anyone to say that it doesn't happen.

To avoid a lively debate, I am not necessarily talking about you. Just that your statement has most likely been made by both sides.

[jonmartensen]

Sarcasm like that would mean more if the exact same complaints (about economy, foreign affairs and mis-management of money) did not occur every term by the other party. That is both republican and democrat whining...it's pretty ignorant of anyone to say that it doesn't happen.

To avoid a lively debate, I am not necessarily talking about you. Just that your statement has most likely been made by both sides.

Indeed. I've been saying that for the past 7 years (through two different party controls) But I'll keep saying it if at least a few people look at themselves and say "Oh" after realizing what they're saying.

[SSJVegita0609]

Jon, you can't defend Bush with that arguement, it really is his fault that most of the problems this country has right now are in place. It was HIS admistration (mainly Condi Rice) that pushed for war in Iraq, it was HIS administation that caused those bullshit tax cuts, its HIS idea to cut environmental funding and manipulate the EPA, its HIS fault that a country went from one of the largest budget surpluses ever to the largest numerical deficit ever in only 3 years time, it was HIS idea to put in place the no child left behind policy without first increasing funding to education, I could go on.

[madmallard]

To get some perspective, here are some real-life comparisons about what $87 billion means:

$87 Billion Is More Than The Combined Total Of All State Budget Deficits In The United States.

The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help states deal with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove down state revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

okay, that made no sense. State budgets have nothing to do with federal government or Income tax. States have their own sales tax and income tax (among other taxes) to pay for the state government.

If a state, like California, is sinking, should the rest of americas -federal- tax money be spent on one state that has too much government to pay for? Thats dumb.

$87 Billion Is Enough To Pay The 3.3 Million People Who Have Lost Jobs Under George W. Bush $26,363 Each!

The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the beginning of this year provides zero benefits to "workers who exhausted their regular, state unemployment benefits and cannot find work." All told, two-thirds of unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

then maybe they should, i dunno, get jobs? Not only that, the employement rate is the LAST part of the economy to respond to changes. Ask any economist. Like Clark Howard for example...

$87 Billion Is More Than DOUBLE The Total Amount The Government Spends On Homeland Security.

The U.S. spends about $36 billion on homeland security. Yet, Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) wrote "America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs" for homeland security without a funding increase. [Source: Council on Foreign Relations]

Well, current homeland security legislation is sloppy anyways. Not exactly ground breaking news there. . .

$87 Billion Is 87 Times The Amount The Federal Government Spends On After School Programs.

George W. Bush proposed a budget that reduces the $1 billion for after-school programs to $600 million -- cutting off about 475,000 children from the program. [Source: The Republican-dominated House Appropriations Committee]

Well, its not the schools job to take care of kids anyways.

$87 Billion Is More Than 10 Times What The Government Spends On All Environmental Protection.

The Bush administration requested just $7.6 billion for the entire Environmental Protection Agency. This included a 32 percent cut to water quality grants, a 6 percent reduction in enforcement staff, and a 50 percent cut to land acquisition and conservation. [Source: Natural Resources Defense Council]

the epa, like all government agencies, needs trimmed.

I would rather see the money not spent at all. But if its going to be, i'd like it to be on an issue that isn't something the populace at large can't fix as a citizen.