Another day, another Fox disinformation campaign.

Why does Fox News hate out troops so much?

"Bottom line: this new talking point is ridiculous from every angle."

Which means we shall soon see very earnest and serious debate on the issue on every news channel! No doubt David Broder is penning a column on the subject at this very moment.

Also, you have to factor in:

1. The long-term costs for treating veterans.

2. The long-term cost of repairing/replacing equipment used in Iraq.

Deficit spending to battle a major recession is supported by legions of economists.

Deficit spending to fight a falsely justified war (even if it did create the opportunity for Bush to "succeed" with the surge) would seem to merit more modest support.

Except the Recovery Act doesn't cost anywhere near 814 billion because, as has been explained, tax cuts don't cost anything.

If you consider that tax cuts were part of the recovery act, it seems to me that Fox has now conceded that tax cuts do not create jobs and are deficit spending.

During the days of the USSR, Pravda ('truth' in Russian) was the official organ of the Soviet Communist Party.

In America we have Fox News ('Fair and Balanced') as the official organ of the Republican Party.

Even a cursory glimpse throughout the day, Fox always puts an anti Democrat spin on the topic, be it foreign or domestic, missing blonde or California car chase.

What Wendy said...next up two blathering idiots on CNN "debating " the merits of the argument.

I want to second 2Manchu's comment. The cost in treating veterans for their entire lifetimes will be tremendous. Thus we've had studies that have estimated that the total cost of the war will end up in the trillions of dollars.

"the other is a war that killed thousands"

Hundreds of thousands.

The truth is that neither the war nor the stimulus caused the massive deficit. It was the large Bush tax cuts combined with a huge recession. Both the President and Fox News got it wrong.

Let's face it, they have us talking about this Bull Shit so its already having an effect. Let's just "Call Bull Shit!"

Its Bull Shit!!! Wars are a huge waste of money - always - they destroy they don't build and they can only be justified if the war itself is a just war; and there are damn few of those. Iraq was certainly not one. The invasion of Iraq to prove W 'had a pair' (because all the other reasons, including getting Iraq's oil have turned out to be Bull Shit)was the opposite. An unjust, unnecessary war.

The very idea that anyone would try to compare that outrageous waste of money (not to mention the lives lost and human suffering caused) with an investment to stimulate the economy in an awful recession is just utter crap. Period.

Never mind the fact that, a little over three years ago, Halliburton moved its HQ to Dubai. My assumption is that they did it so they'll pay no corporate taxes to the US.

I may be missing something. Obama says "We spent a trillion dollars at war" and the Republicans retort deliberately ignores Afghanistan (~$330 billion). That's how they can quote a number less than a trillion dollars.

Their talking point misses the point of what he actually said.

Look like fox is going to have sit closer than the front row if they're ever going to really hear Obama.

No offense intended, Steve, but I don't find your rebuttal all that convincing, as far as it goes. Not because I agree with Faux News, but because I think the approach of comparing the two costs is fundamentally misguided: it's an apples to oranges comparison, so quibbling over the exact amounts not only misses the point, but implicitly ratifies the Fox News contention that these two amounts are directly comparable.

Money spent on the Iraq war, while no doubt having some marginal stimulative effect (as would spending to dig a hole, then fill it in), was a) largely spent at a time when the economy didn't need stimulating (unlike the stimulus); and b) not intended to, nor effective at, restructuring the economy to make America more competitive, improve infrastructure, keep the financial system from collapsing, etc.

The real point is that money spent on the Iraq war is money that isn't available for other, more constructive, things.

Keep in mind, these are the same people who — in the face of Global Warming, crippling dependence on foreign oil, dwindling reserves, the largest man-made ecological disaster in history, and spiking gas prices — lament that Hummers are no longer being built and insist that we drill, baby, drill.

There is simply no reasoning with these subhumans.

Bottom line: this new talking point is ridiculous from every angle.

SOP for the GOP.

SOBs,
-Z

Also, you have to factor in:

1. The long-term costs for treating veterans. -- 2Manchu, @15:51

Not, if the veterans take a hint from Alan Simpson, sacrifice for the country a little bit more and die, pronto.

What, BTW, is wrong with Wyoming, that it produces such unmitigated, evil, bastards as Simpson and Cheney?

"the other is a war that killed thousands"
Hundreds of thousands.

Started, by choice, pretextually based on the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Ridiculous, absolutely. But Goebbels, er, Roger Ailes knows that accuracy in these matters is less important than endless repetition. Eventually even such pure BS becomes part of the MSM's "conventional wisdom."

Bring the wars home.

"ridiculous from every angle."

then it should work our quite well for them.

According to recovery.gov, $288 billion of the stimulus funds go to tax cuts. Surely Fox isn't going to count TAX CUTS as a burden to the economy. Because if that's true, then they certainly wouldn't be in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.

Steve-

I can't believe you failed to mention the most obvious rebuttal, which is simply this:

Whatever the comparative costs of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act vs the Iraq War, it doesn't matter, because we still spent that money in Iraq and we still added it to the National Debt. Comparing it to any other number or program is rank obfuscation. We borrowed the money, we spent it, and now we have to pay it back with interest.

That we didn't invest it in America makes it that much worse, but the thing to remember is that it was money we didn't have to spend, in both senses of the term.

According to recovery.gov, $288 billion of the stimulus funds go to tax cuts. Surely Fox isn't going to count TAX CUTS as a burden to the economy. Because if that's true, then they certainly wouldn't be in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.

Yes. Say it loud. As I recall Republicans demanded these tax cuts.

There is also the huge difference that much of the money for the wars leaves the US and never comes back into our economy.
Most of the money for the stimulus stays in the US economy where it can be recycled in the manufacturing, goods, and services industries.

and what about the missing $9 billion?

killed thousands? i'd say it is safe to say killed hundreds of thousnads

killed thousands? i'd say it is safe to say killed hundreds of thousnads
Posted by: thomas on September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Thomas? How many times do I hafta tell ya? The Eye-rab Moose-lims *do not count*. At all. Not even for 5/8th of a person each. You're not a "real Amerikan" if you think otherwise.

Another thought: Bushco's abusing the National Guard and equipment by sending them to Iraq meant we didn't have them/it here at home to help with Katrina/hurricanes, forest/wildfires, tornadoes and other natural disasters. Contributed to keeping us less safe.

Extra! Extra! Fox News Opposes tax cuts!

Roughly $275 billion in the estimated cost of the Recovery Plan is the estimated cost for:

1. New tax credits
2. Alternative minimum tax
3. Expanded child credit
4. Expanded earned income tax credit
5. Expanded college credit
6. Expanded homebuyer credit
7. Home energy credits
8. Unemployment compensation tax exemptions
9. Bonus depreciation
10. Business tax credits permitting losses to offset profits
11. Penalties for government vendors who owe taxes
12. Energy production credits
13. Tax credits for the acquisition of money-losing banks
14. Subsidies for locally-issued bonds
15. Automobile sales tax deductions

Fox News shouldn't feel hypocritical alone -- all the Republicans opposed these tax cuts, too.

Does anyone remember the debate befor the presidential election when Bush derided Kerry for explaining the war in Iraq was going to cost over 300 billion dollars. Bush went ballistic and said and I quote as accurately as memory allows that it wouldn't cost over 50 billion.

Excellent points, for the most part. But it doesn't advance the argument to note that debt interest isn't included in the Iraq war number, since it isn't included in the stimulus number either.