Budget talks: This is getting nasty

How about the two additional current wars? These cannot be blamed on Bush, can they?

And I find it hilarious that on a journalism website people think it okay to pass off a graphic without sourcing it. It is not my job to do the work...it is the poster's job to explain where it came from. However, I don't expect much in the way of ethics from this crowd. Are any of you even journalists?

 

Right, continue the successful policies of the previous president. By the way, terrorists did not fly planes into buildings on the previous president's watch...but that's probably not worth mentioning because it doesn't fit the narrative, right?

 

Libya has cost anywheres from $550-$600 MILLION, from reports that I have seen on the Interwebs. And we didn't attack anyone. We're helping a group of rebels who've asked for our help.

Iraq, meanwhile has cost roughly $3 TRILLION. You know, a much bigger number.

So right now, we've spent not quite half the cost of the new Yankee Stadium on Libya. Of course, it'll go up. Hopefully, it'll be over soon.

 

According to this site, the direct cost of 9/11 was $35 to $109 billion

http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?AID=1495

This other site says $50 to $100 billion in direct costs:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-cost-of-bin-laden-3-trillion-over-15-years-20110505

 

You cite two additional wars. I only know of one--Libya.
I think Baron has already covered the vast difference in cost between Libya and Iraq, so I won't elaborate. But Libya is in the budget, is it not? Has been from the very start, has it not? For better or worse--and I'm not at all thrilled that U.S. troops are there--it's been accounted for in the federal budget.

The same could not be said about Iraq.

 

It also would have been the right thing to do to ask the country to make the sacrifice of paying higher tax when it made the case to go to what it was basically portraying to be a world war on terrorism. It seemed -- particularly in the case of Afghanistan -- that the country was on board with going there. That's the point where you also have to say "and we have to pay for this."

 

He should have sourced it.

And by the way, the graphic, and what was subsequently posted is damning to your assertion that this is about Obama spending running amok. And that's not even getting into the whole discussion about whether, at the moment when it was passed, the stimulus plan was the right thing to do. It was poorly executed -- far too much wasted on ineffective tax cuts to appease ill-advised conservatives -- but with the economy where it was the stimulus was the right thing to do.

 

You don't want to go there, believe me.

 

"Ice Cream" and "Berries" are both top-10 vectors for foodborne illness.


http://www.foxnews.com/imag/Food/10+Foods+That+Can+Make+You+Sick

 

My favorite flavor:

 

And the biggest problem came from the premix the State wants them to use.

And, the worst berry case involved frozen, not fresh berries.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Fresh cream and strawberries are now dangerous items that need to be regulated. This just raises the barriers of entry for business.

And, the beneficiaries are the big, multi-national, conglomerates that most of the liberals on the board claim to hate.

Enjoy your corporate ice cream.

(And, yes, I know I bought the Ben & Jerry's. But it was cheaper and I really didn't want strawberry ice cream. But, I still feel bad about it and it's about the principle anyway.)

 

Plus, if we hadn't done something in Libya, Obama would have been crucified for "not standing up for American values of freedom and democracy."