McCain Lies To Americans About Balancing The Budget, The Media Doesn't Seem To Care

A few days ago McCain lied to the American people, again. The question is, as usual, did he knowingly lie, or is he just that ignorant? It is a tossup, as McCain has admitted himself that he doesn't have a strong understanding of how the economy works:

The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should.

Of course months later he lied (or maybe just forgot, are we dealing with chronic Alzheimer's?), saying that he never said what he was on tape saying:

Robin Roberts: "You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy..."

John McCain: "I have not. I have not. I actually have not. I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military.

Lie, Lie, Lie, and Lie. He managed to fit 4 lies in right there, pretty amazing. He lied 3 times about not saying what he clearly said, and then lied about what he says he actually said, which is not what he said. Gotta love how this guy rolls huh? His sort of lying is really not compatible with YouTube. See McCain, we can catch you when you lie now, this isn't like all of the lies from your Congressional career, times have changed.

But that isn't the point here. The point is that McCain's willingness to lie to people, or his complete ignorance on how the economy works, has manifest itself again. McCain recently claimed that he would balance the budget by 2013, the end of his first term (although other officials have backtracked on this, and said it wouldn't be until the end of his second term). Okay, so the lie here is of course his claim, his promise, that he can and will reduce the budget deficit, ever. Can't happen. There are many obvious reasons it can't happen. First, McCain wants to continue the Iraq war, which has greatly increased the budget deficit. He has claimed that we will have "won" (whatever that means, who knows, since he refuses to say what his definition of "winning" is) in Iraq by 2013, and thus we'll get all of these savings, and that will lead to a budget surplus:

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

See how that works? This is how McCain thinks it works. Say you are an irresponsible teenager who wastes money like the he or she is Donald Trump. Say this person saves ZERO, and every year runs up an increasingly enormous credit card debt. Say this person scales back somewhat on the enormous spending, but does that mean they are now saving? Is there magically "savings" now? No, just less spending. The debt is still there, the high interest payments are still there from all of that debt. McCain makes it sound like after we "win" in Iraq AND Afghanistan we'll get a big cash reward that we can apply toward balancing the budget. Sorry, not how it works.

And notice how it is savings from "winning" Iraq, Afghanistan (which, since McCain apparently hasn't noticed, just experienced the bloodiest month since the invasion seven years ago), AND presumably the entire "fight against Islamic extremists", because McCain's economic plan seems to rest on the assumption that he doesn't get us into any more wars (you know, like bomb bomb bombing Iran for instance, which you can be almost certain he would, or perhaps getting into an armed conflict with China, because he "hates the gooks" so much). But for a second, let's put reality aside and pretend that McCain can "win" Iraq, and "win" Afghanistan, and "win" the "war on terror", and doesn't get us into any new wars, let's basically assume that suddenly McCain makes the whole world love us. Even then, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that reducing troop levels in Iraq to 75,000 by 2013 would cost an additional $205 billion (on top of the already huge spending levels) between 2008 and 2013. And that is just Iraq, not counting Afghanistan. And somehow with that McCain is going to balance the budget. Right. Apparently we are going to have to move on to his other plans to see how he is supposedly going to pull this off.

The second part of his plan is to continue Bush's tax cuts for the rich (which the CBO estimates would cost more than $700 billion in the next five years), and then tack on at least $300 billion in additional tax cuts for the rich (and corporations, don't worry, McCain hasn't forgotten you). Are the alarm bells going off yet? How in the hell, does McCain expect to balance the budget by continuing a hopeless, destructive, and very expensive war for at least 5 more years (possibly longer, he keeps changing the number) while giving the rich HUGE tax cuts?? McCain might have missed this, but his plan is EXACTLY Bush's plan, which is what led us to record deficits in the first place! The Bush administration was the first in American history to actually decrease taxes during a war (in other words, the only one in history to greatly increase the money going out, while cutting off the money going in...because that is CRAZY), and now McCain wants to be the second in history. In short, he either has absolutely no clue how the federal budget works, or he is FLAT OUT LYING to voters when he says he can balance the budget in his first (or even second) term. His plan is to take the shovel that Bush has used to dig us into the economic hole we are in, and dig faster. And this is supposedly going to fill in the hole. Does McCain think we are idiots??

McCain says we'll make up for these hundreds of billions of dollars in war spending, and the over $1 TRILLION price tax for his rich people tax cuts, by cutting "wasteful earmarks". For some perspective, this year there were about $17 billion in total earmarks. The total budget was $2.9 trillion. Yeah, that $17 billion,

A longtime foe of pet projects known as earmarks, Mr. McCain said he would stop such spending. The Bush White House says earmarks this year total $17 billion, a comparatively small share of a $2.9 trillion budget. $17 billion is less than the cost of a month and a half of the Iraq war. McCain thinks cutting that, blindly, will solve our problems. I say blindly because earmarks aren't all wasteful, in fact some fund vital programs. Some go to thinks like flood control and repairing bridges. McCain doesn't seem to understand that not all earmarks are bad, he sees everything as black and white, much like Bush, so to him all he needs to know is that it is an earmark, and it must be destroyed, even if it is money well spent. Make that example #4881 of McCain not understanding the federal budget.

McCain also says he will freeze non-military discretionary spending at current levels for a year, again, blindly, without any regard for the consequences of what that would do to the affected programs. As the New York Times points out:

This proposal would affect education, scientific research, law enforcement and scores of other programs.

Mr. Bush’s battles with Congress suggest it would be extremely difficult for Mr. McCain to win approval for such a freeze.

The budget process isn't something that should be approached recklessly. Programs live and die based on federal appropriations. The functioning of government and countless programs rely on proper funding. You can't just arbitrarily "freeze" funding without any regard for its consequences. Yet that is exactly what McCain says he will do. It is hard to think of a more irresponsible, reckless, and ignorant approach to the federal budget. Make that example #4882. Not to mention all of this is politically impossible, which is something else he fails to mention to voters.

But hell, let's just say McCain gets everything he wants in his wildest dreams, and even goes further, let's say he completely ELIMINATES all non-military discretionary funding, which accounts for around $540.8 billion annually. That means eliminating the Department of Health and human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Centers for Disease Control, the EPA, the FDA (you think we have problems with tainted meat and produce now), the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, Amtrak, student financial aid, etc, you get the picture. Say we did all of that, completely gutted the federal government, which would essentially destroy life as we know it...and that only gets us $540.8 billion. Recall that McCain's new tax cuts for the rich would cost us at least $300 billion, add $10 billion of his "gas tax holiday". Recall extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich would cost over $700 billion. And don't forget the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq every year, a war that by many estimates will cost us upwards of $3 trillion (in direct and indirect costs) by the time it is over (whenever that would be in a McCain administration). Essentially, McCain could cut all (non-military) "discretionary" (which isn't really discretionary at all, it is what the government runs on) spending, and STILL not balance the budget with his wars and his huge tax cuts for the rich. And of course such cuts are impossible, just as even his blind "freeze" on discretionary spending simply won't happen, Democrats aren't that irresponsible with managing the federal budget. But McCain doesn't tell voters any of that either (I'm assuming, hoping, he knows that).

McCain, of course, like every Republican, would like nothing more than to destroy Social Security (which he recently called a "disgrace"), Medicare and other social services, so he also takes aim there. He has said he will cut spending in the so-called "entitlement programs", which almost all Americans rely on for retirement, and tens of millions rely on for health care. So what if Americans are already hurting and finding it hard to pay for retirement or for health care, McCain and the Republicans want to cut these vital social programs anyway. Of course McCain won't get specific about how he wants to cut these programs, because saying it would doom him electorally, so he just hints at it, and the media of course doesn't connect the dots and hold him accountable. Ezra Klein hits on this:

"Overhauling" is a weasel word. So, in this context, is "reform." If you are going to balance the budget by doing something to entitlement programs, you are going to do one of two things: Raise the payroll tax, or cut the programs. In other words, the accurate headline for this piece would read "McCain Promises to Cut Social Security And Medicare Or Drastically Raise The Payroll Tax." If enough pieces like that were written, McCain would have to explain which of those he intends to do. As of yet, he's been able to dodge the question, saying repeatedly that he'll "talk' to Congress. But Congress won't cut Social Security or Medicare. So is McCain promising a massive payroll tax increase? Or is he just spouting platitudes? It's an interesting question, and it actually has an answer. But in order to get that answer, reporters will need to aggressively explain McCain's plan: Cut Social Security and Medicare. Or pass a huge tax increase. Those are his only two options. And the legendary straight talker should be able to explain which he favors.

In short: He is playing voters for fools, and the media is helping him do it by refusing to do their job. But there is hope, at least, as the NYT reports:

The package of spending and tax cuts proposed by Senator John McCain is unlikely to achieve his goal of balancing the federal budget by 2013, economists and fiscal experts said Monday.

"It would be very difficult to achieve in the best of circumstances, and even more difficult under the policies that Senator McCain has proposed," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.

[...]

C. Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, who worked in the Reagan administration, said Mr. McCain "may well be committed to balancing the budget in five years, but does not tell you how he would reach that goal."

J. Bradford DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, who worked at the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, said, "Senator McCain and his advisers want to claim they will balance the budget by 2013, but they have given us no clue and no plan to meet all the commitments he has made and still get there."

In other words, he has made promises that are impossible to keep. In other words, he is either flat out lying to voters, promising things he can't deliver, or he is a complete idiot, who really has no idea how impossible balancing the budget would be with his budget proposals. I do think he is an idiot, but no one is that stupid, I think it is obvious he is lying.

Newsweek and Factcheck also have a good breakdown of McCain's budget distortions, part I here, and part II here.

Which is why I'm writing this, because we have to keep exposing McCain's lies and distortions, in hopes that the media will eventually end their love affair with McCain and start doing their job. We can always dream.

Update: Oh yes, McCain has been running around saying his economic plan has been endorsed by 300 economists, but it turns out they were duped into endorsing a short statement of economic principles, which McCain then attached to his 15-page economic plan. In fact many of the economists say they have reservations about many parts of his plan, and wouldn't have endorsed the actual plan. Apparently McCain doesn't save dishonesty for the voters, he gives everyone around him the same treatment.

Update #2: Also, check out Obama's memo on the economy, for some good juxtapositions of his plan and McCain's "plan".

Bush/McCain Ignore Iowa Governor's Requests And Go To Iowa, Hampering Relief Efforts

John McCain is a typical politician, and politicians have many things in common, one of which is a love for photo-ops, so they can pretend to care, or be doing something, about one thing or another. They say a picture speaks a thousand words, and your typical politician believes that if they can get in a nice picture, they won't have to speak any words, or put in any effort whatsoever.

So yesterday, nearly two weeks after the massive flooding began ravaging Iowa, John McCain and George Bush finally made their way to the flood zone. Since the beginning Obama had been raising awareness of the disaster, particularly on his website, asking his supporters to donate their time and money to the relief efforts. Not a mention of it on McCain's website. Bush was touring Europe and didn't see fit to cut his trip short in response to the state of emergency back home. And last week Obama was in Illinois where the flooding has also hit, filling sandbags and discussing disaster response with the locals.

The McCain/Bush trip (although they didn't go together because they didn't want a repeat of their last joint disaster photo shoot - see below) came over a week after Obama canceled his plans to go to Iowa. Why did he cancel? Out of respect to the state, because he didn't want to take away focus from the relief efforts, and because the Governor of Iowa specifically asked him not to come while they were trying to deal with the disaster. Governor Culver made the same request to the McCain campaign, but obviously McCain values photo-ops over respecting the will of state government and doing what is best for the relief effort:

Patrick Dillon, Culver's chief of staff, said the governor was concerned that McCain's trip would divert local law enforcement from the flood recovery effort to provide security for McCain.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama canceled a scheduled visit to eastern Iowa last week at the request of state officials.

"As a courtesy — and as we did for Senator Obama — we privately made an effort to make sure that Senator McCain knew that state and local resources were still being deployed to support the flood fight and that now may not be the best time for a campaign trip," Dillon said in a statement.

Dillon's comments came as President Bush toured the state, and hundreds of law enforcement officers were diverted from flood recovery to provide security for him.

So does McCain care that his presence, in addition to Bush's presence, would take away critical manpower from the relief effort? Hell no. When it comes to disaster response, Bush and McCain have a solid strategy: Too little, too late, mess up the relief effort as much as possible.



Dansac over at Daily Kos shows us that McCain's incompetence goes even further, because McCain actually voted against federal funds for flood control in Des Moines, IA, the state capital, which had to be partially evacuated earlier in the week. McCain dismissed the funding as unnecessary "pork barrel" spending, apparently not having a keen enough understanding of the funding process to realize that some of that money is actually necessary, practical, and economically smart. This from dansac:

The Des Moines Register has another doozy for its readers to wake up to today:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposed legislation last year that included money for flood control in Des Moines, which shows he is wrong to push for reforms to the congressional earmark system, a Democratic lawmaker charged Thursday.

Oops.  Johnny Mac railed against this bill, claiming it was filled with pork.  I think the citizens of Iowa are not going to be so receptive to the notion of critical infrastructure = pork.

Every member of the Iowa congressional delegation voted to override Bush's veto, the first override of his presidency.

McCain strongly backed Bush.

"This legislation is fundamentally flawed, authorizing nearly 1,000 new projects without any method for prioritizing the needs of our national water infrastructure," he told the Senate. He added that the bill was "full of pork projects and unchecked government spending."

So let's get this straight.  McCain, as he did with the folks in New Orleans, voted against any federal spending on improving the infrastructure there.   Then, once disaster struck,  he decided to visit the area against the request of the state because it could be a distraction and divert critical resources...

Yes, once again, McCain stood behind Bush in opposing much needed money for infrastructure investment that would prove crucial in the event of an emergency, again choosing ideology and politics over what makes sense.

Bush and McCain celebrating McCain's birthday while New Orleans and the Gulf coast languished under the destruction of Hurricane Katrina

Obama Serves McCain A Stinging Indictment On The Economy

Yesterday Obama embarked on a two week tour highlighting the economy, and targeting John McCain who has supported the same disastrous Bush/Republican policies that have wrecked havoc on our country and Americans in all corners of the US. It's an excellent speech, a stinging indictment of everything the Republicans have done to our economy in the last 8 years (and to a larger extent the last three decades). You have to watch the video:



And here is the transcript.

And here is Obama's detailed economic plan.

John and Elizabeth Edwards were also there supporting his vision of a new economy.



Here are some highlights:

First, the big picture:

We did not arrive at the doorstep of our current economic crisis by some accident of history. This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle that was beyond our power to avoid. It was the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long.

George Bush called it the Ownership Society, but it’s little more than a worn dogma that says we should give more to those at the top and hope that their good fortune trickles down to the hardworking many. For eight long years, our President sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy, and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs – trillions of dollars in giveaways that proved neither compassionate nor conservative.

And for all of George Bush’s professed faith in free markets, the markets have hardly been free – not when the gates of Washington are thrown open to high-priced lobbyists who rig the rules of the road and riddle our tax code with special interest favors and corporate loopholes. As a result of such special-interest driven policies and lax regulation, we haven’t seen prosperity trickling down to Main Street. Instead, a housing crisis that could leave up to two million homeowners facing foreclosure has shaken confidence in the entire economy.

Then, taking aim at McCain on the economy:

...when it comes to the economy, John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country. Because for all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of his economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush’s policies. He says we’ve made "great progress" in our economy these past eight years. He calls himself a fiscal conservative and on the campaign trail he’s passionate critic of government spending, and yet he has no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and a permanent occupation of Iraq – policies that have left our children with a mountain of debt.

Obama's vision of the economy:

I have a different vision for the future. Instead of spending twelve billion dollars a month to rebuild Iraq, I think it’s time we invested in our roads and schools and bridges and started to rebuild America. Instead of handing out giveaways to corporations that don’t need them and didn’t ask for them, it’s time we started giving a hand-up to families who are trying pay their medical bills and send their children to college. We can’t afford four more years of skewed priorities that give us nothing but record debt – we need change that works for the American people. And that is the choice in this election

My vision involves both a short-term plan to help working families who are struggling to keep up and a long-term agenda to make America competitive in a global economy.

Obama takes on McCain's failure on the housing crisis:

As late as December, John McCain told a newspaper in New Hampshire that he’d love to offer a solution to the housing crisis, but he just didn’t have one. It took him three different tries to figure it out, and in the end, his plan does nothing to help 1.5 million homeowners who are facing foreclosure, even as he supported spending billions to bail out Wall Street. President Bush told the American people he thought the biggest danger arising from this housing crisis was the temptation to do something about it. Now Senator McCain wants to turn Bush’s policy of ‘too little, too late’ into a policy of ‘even less, even later’. That’s not the change we need right now. That’s what got us into this mess in the first place.

In contrast, I offered a proposal to crack down on mortgage fraud almost two years ago, and in this campaign I’ve called for the immediate creation of a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to provide direct relief to victims of the housing crisis. We’ll also help those who are facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages so they can stay in their homes at rates they can afford. I’ll provide struggling homeowners relief by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.

The principle is simple – if the government can bail out investment banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to folks who are struggling on Main Street.

And he takes aim on health care:

When it comes to reliving these economic anxieties that working families feel, nothing matches the burden they face from crushing health care costs. John McCain's approach to health care mirrors that of George Bush. He’s promising four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy – a plan that will actually make it easier – easier – than it already is for insurance companies to deny coverage to the elderly or the sick or those with pre-existing conditions. It may lead millions to lose the coverage they already have and millions more to have to pay even more than they do right now.

We can’t afford that. Not when 47 million Americans are already uninsured, a number that is growing by the day. Not when families and businesses across the country are being crushed by the growing burden of health care costs and when half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills.

Obama eviscerates McCain on tax breaks for the rich:

John McCain once said that he couldn’t vote for the Bush tax breaks in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans. Later, he said it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war because we simply couldn’t afford them. Well, nothing’s changed about the war, but something’s certainly changed about John McCain, because these same Bush tax cuts are now his central economic policy. Not only that, but he is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive. His policy will spend nearly $2 trillion on tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone, a company that just recorded the highest profits in history.

Think about that. At a time when we’re fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can’t afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we’re paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn’t just irresponsible. It’s outrageous.

If John McCain’s policies were implemented, they would add $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That isn’t fiscal conservatism, that’s what George Bush has done over the last eight years. Not only can working families not afford it, future generations can’t afford it. And we can’t allow it to happen in this election.

And Obama's promise:

I’ll take a different approach. I will reform our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity instead of distorting the market by advancing the agenda of some lobbyist or oil company. I’ll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens, and I’ll use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95% of workers and their families. I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills. We’ll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect. And while John McCain wants to pick up where George Bush left off by trying again to privatize Social Security, I will never waver in my commitment to protect that basic promise as President. We will not privatize Social Security, we will not raise the retirement age, and we will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.

Obama targets credit card companies:

Finally, we need to help those Americans who find themselves in a debt spiral climb out. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don’t become the next stage in the housing crisis. To make sure that Americans know what they’re signing up for, I’ll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we’ll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to credit card agreements; ban rate hikes on debt you already had; and ban interest charges on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but you should pay what’s fair, not just what fattens profits for some credit card company and they can get away with.

A great speech, and a great start on a new direction for our economy and for our country. Now don't let anyone tell you he doesn't have specifics, or he is all about hope and words but no action, because he has detailed plans and great ideas, just as he has always had.

Bookmark the transcript and video and share it with anyone who buys into the Republican lies about Obama not having any specifics, bookmark his economic plan, and his other plans, because we have to be vigilant and fight back against those kinds of lies that seek to deceive voters so they will vote Republican. Not this time, not on our watch.

Update: In the Huffington Post yesterday Campaign for America's Future co-Director Robert Borosage applauded Obama's pummeling of McCain over the economy and highlighted some of the woes thrust upon average Americans by the destructive conservative economic policies of the last 8 years. Definitely worth a read.

What Would You Do With $3 Trillion?

I bought universal health care and a scooter for every American, and solar power for every American household, and I had money left over.

What would you do with $3 trillion?

Update: Here is how John Cusack spent his.

@#$&!! (The State of Bush's Union)

While watching Bush's State of the Union address last night, one part in particular, between the lies, threats and propaganda, really struck me. Granted, this part was 50% lie, 50% threat, 50% propaganda, but this part also had about 100% blatant hypocrisy, so all in all, yes, it was about 250% bullshit:

Just as we trust Americans with their own money, we need to earn their trust by spending their tax dollars wisely. Next week, I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion. The budget that I will submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012. American families have to balance their budgets; so should their government. (Applause.)

Yes, oh wise one, we need to earn the American people's trust, we need to spend their tax dollars wisely, no wasteful spending! Yes, oh powerful Bush, lecture us on fiscal responsibility, condemn deficit spending! What shall be the target of your scorn? What monstrosity is keeping us from achieving a budget surplus by 2012?

I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion.

Wait, $18 billion spread out over 151 programs? That's what is wasting all of our tax money? That's what is keeping us in record deficits?? $18 billion in what I can only assume from Bush's scorn are small programs protecting trees, the elderly, children and kittens? Funny, I would have picked something slightly different...think...oh...what was that...think...

Oh yeah! It was that goddamn $500,000,000,000 and counting catastrophe in the Middle East your repugnant ass got us into! The same goddamn war that was the reason that SCHIP was too expensive to fund at $35 billion over five years! Providing health insurance to millions of low income children for five years was too expensive, yet it was just a fraction of what this war has cost. And don't be deceived by the half billion dollar price tag, the real costs (including things like health care for wounded veterans, interest on the ever-expanding debt, and increased oil prices) are estimated to eventually reach $2 – 3.5 TRILLION by the time it is all over. And what do we get for that titanic price tag? 600,000 to over a million dead Iraqis, nearly 4,000 dead American soldiers, over 1000 dead private contractors, almost 30,000 wounded American soldiers, who the hell even knows how many wounded and ruined Iraqis, hundreds of thousands of US soldiers coming back with PTSD, many killing themselves, or other people, who can even imagine the mental trauma suffered by the Iraqi children who are lucky enough to live through this, 4 million Iraqi refugees, ethnic cleansing, civil war, more terrorists every day, more animosity toward America and Americans every day, and some record profits for some rich ass well-connected contractors. And we paid for that, we actually paid money, lots and lots of money, to ruin the lives of millions of people.

In economics they have something called “opportunity cost”, literally the opportunities that are passed up when choosing one route over another, what could have been and should have been. Courtesy of the National Priorities Project:

Taxpayers in the United States will pay $155.5 billion (this is actually low from the research I have done, the final amount after the various supplemental funding provisions are requested and passed) for proposed Iraq War Spending for FY2008. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

44,330,909 People with Health Care OR
160,931,429 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR
3,478,615 Public Safety Officers OR
2,698,795 Music and Arts Teachers OR
25,660,964 Scholarships for University Students OR
15,637 New Elementary Schools OR
1,209,236 Affordable Housing Units OR
66,294,593 Children with Health Care OR
21,332,592 Head Start Places for Children OR
2,646,531 Elementary School Teachers OR
2,336,286 Port Container Inspectors

That's just what we could have achieved with some of the money from this year's war profiteering money. But no, apparently mass murder and lining the pockets of war contractors is more important. Apparently everything is more important than putting money to good use. So it is just amazing, simply dumbfounding, that that self-righteous bastard can get up there, and with a straight face lecture Democrats on wasting money, when he is the war criminal who got us into the most expensive war since WWII. I'm just shocked at the audacity. And this is why I can never go into politics, because I wouldn't have been able to hold my contempt for that prick while he stood there with that cocky little smirk on his face tripping on his own ego, all the while bathing in hypocrisy and the blood and suffering of millions.

Oh yeah, and to lend continuity to my posts, thank you Hillary Clinton for giving Bush a blank check to invade Iraq, and for supporting the war until it became politically unpopular. Wow I'm sooo proud of your leadership. God, we really need you to lead us from Day One!

“ Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

— Dwight D. Eisenhower