Randall Hoven has a brilliant piece in the American Thinker blog:
The Iraq War ends this month. The last combat brigade left August 19. Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began in 2003, will end August 31. September 1 marks the beginning of Operation New Dawn. Now that it’s over, what did the Iraq War cost?
Here are examples of what some people Here are examples of what some people had been saying about Iraq War costs.
“It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq…”
– James Carville, the Financial Times.“The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can’t spend $3 trillion — yes, $3 trillion — on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.”
– Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Washington Post.“First, the facts. Nearly the entire deficit for this year and those projected into the near and medium terms are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession. The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars…”
Hoven wonders where Carville comes up with the $3 trillion figure.
The correct answer to my question, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is $709 billion. The Iraq War cost $709 billion.
So what are deficits with and without the Iraq war?
This chart is nothing less than fabulous:
Here comes the slam dunk:
Not only do the critics of the Iraq War make 300% errors in their numbers, but they also contradict themselves with abandon. When Obama was pushing he stimulus, he said,
Then you get the argument, “well this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.” Whaddya think a stimulus is? (Laughter.) That’s the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That’s the point. (Applause.)
So spending $572B in two years stimulates an economy, but spending $554B over six years ruins one?
In other words, spending is a stimulus only when Democrats spend.
Spending goes nuts as soon as Democrats take over Congress, beginning with fiscal 2008.
Hoven shows clearly that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with our current financial mess. Keep that chart handy the next time a liberal tries again to make the argument.
Terrific chart.
@DrJohn
We must not forget, as well, the Omnibus spending bill of 2009 that contained over 9000 spending measures considered “pork barrel” spending, and cost over $410billion. Some of the spending is done on an annual basis, while much of it is one time only spending. This happens on a yearly basis. For example, this years Omnibus spending bill was passed last Dec. and contains spending as listed below.
And, the spending spree will continue when congress passes the Omnibus for 2011. One has to wonder, particularly if it passes late this year(2011 fiscal), how many ‘lame-duck’ congress critters will try to include more ‘back-home’ project pork barrel spending.
I read Hoven’s blogpost earlier and was going to offer it in another thread but for some reason my computer wouldn’t let me into FA.
Please, read the whole article and for further reading I recommend clicking his name, that will take you to all his other writing. He’s been a favorite stop of mine for some time, he digs in, uses reliable sources and has a unique sense of humor.
How about earmarks, more pork……no big deal, depending on your attitude I guess:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/112059-gop-moratorium-leads-to-drop-in-2011-earmark-spending
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/your-daily-dose-of-news-26.html
BTW, the Republican moratorium has saved 40% in three appropriations bills this year.
The $3 trillion figure is long term costs, including lifelong medical and disability care for wounded soldiers, the cost of replacing destroyed equipment, used ordnance, and continuing occupation costs. To my knowledge, this $3 trillion figure hasn’t been credibly challenged.
The other thing to remember is that we aren’t talking about $730 billion (or whatever, for the stimulus) vs Zero billion. We are talking about the difference between the Democratic stimulus (mixture of aid to state and local governments, tax cuts, unemployment benefits, with smaller amounts for infrastructure “investment”) and the GOP proposed stimulus (greater tax cuts — paid for, as in the case of the Dem stimulus — with borrowed money). So the difference between Dem and GOP versions of the stimulus were on the order of 200 or so billion dollars, which is not unsubstantial but which is also far from being night and day.
A huge part of the deficit is reduced tax collections, which is a direct consequence of the financial meltdown itself, and has nothing at all to do with the spending side of things.
You’ve got to remember that a Keynesian stimulus is a Keynesian stimulus. Any time you borrow money to put more money in circulation during a recession, you have a Keynesian stimulus. Ronald Reagan instituted a Keynesian stimulus. George W Bush instituted a Keynesian stimulus. So did Barack Obama.
Reagan had the good sense to cut back on the stimulus (i.e. to raise taxes) when the recession ended. This policy (gradual increase in taxes, to reduce the deficit) was wisely continued under GHW Bush and under Clinton. GW Bush inherited a slight recession. He instituted his Keynesian stimulus. This wasn’t a bad thing, but what was bad was not to follow the successful examples of Reagan, GHW Bush, and Clinton in shutting down the stimulus (by raising taxes and closing the deficit) when the recession ended. The GW Bush stimulus created a capital glut, which, along with the Fed monetary policy of indefensibly low interest rates, contributed to the situation of too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities, which led to a decline in lending standards and the pushing of inherently unsafe investment vehicles, such as securitized mortgages and credit default swaps.
Obama’s plan is to withdraw the stimulus (including raising taxes) as the recession ends.
We’ll all get the chance to see whether or not it works.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
“Obama’s Stimulus Cost More Than The Entire Iraq War.”
Perhaps so, but the body count has been lower.
The $3 trillion? $749.9 has been allocated for Iraq from 2003 through present, with $743.3 of that spent. $3 trillion represents the estimated overall cost to the U.S. economy, including future expenses. It’s been estimated, for example, that future healthcare costs for the 32,000 military personnel wounded in Iraq will run from a minimum of $350 billion to as high as $700 billion. Another hidden expense is the replacement cost of the enormous quantities of military equipment depleted in Iraq. Then we’ve got to remember that the war has been financed using borrowed money that there’s no prospect we’ll be paying back anytime soon. Presumably we all realize that the long-term finance costs of a loan paid back over many years greatly exceed the amount you borrowed in the first place.
Getting to $3 trillion is easy. Back in 2007, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the true cost of Iraq would reach $2.4 trillion by 2017, owing to the fact that we were borrowing the money. We’ve added considerably to what we’ve borrowed since then.
“So spending $572B in two years stimulates an economy, but spending $554B over six years ruins one?”
Whether something helps or hurts the national economy is not just a matter of how many dollars; it’s also a matter of how you spend them.
What would the long-term difference have been if the borrowed money spent in Iraq had instead been spent to modernize our industrial infrastructure, or used for research and development of more fuel efficient trucks and automobiles and new energy techologies?
Some investments hold the promise of enormous economic paybacks. Using borrowed money to finance them can make sense. Others simply drain off your economic resources, leaving you with little more than the promise of additional future costs.
Even if Obama’s stimulus ends up being a more massive expenditure than the Iraq war (which I’m not going to take sides on, though comments #4 and #5 make some good points), that is still tu quoque as regards the Iraq war expenditures. I regard both those expenditures and TARP and Obama’s stimulus as enormous wastes of money, sum total of however many trillions.
But logically there is no reason someone can’t claim that the stimulus expenditure was justified but the war expenditure was not, or that the war expenditure was justified but the stimulus was not, or both or neither.
I also find it somewhat arbitrary to say that our expenditures in Iraq after September are to be considered under some separate account. However the operations are labeled for accounting purposes, we have been spending money maintaining a military presence in and around Iraq for about twenty years, and are going to continue to do so for another ten or so if current plans are to be believed. That still will cost plenty of money – less now that these are no longer combat operations, but still not a small amount.
@ open
We’re not done with the stimulus either:
Stimulus to cost $27B more than original pricetag
@DrJohn:
Here’s what the story you cited said (reference/link) in your #7, above:
The extra price tag includes an extension of unemployment benefits and aid to the states — both of which did get some GOP votes. It’s not like Obama used the extra money to buy more government toys or give out candy.
My own position is that the government shouldn’t spend more money than it has to spend. If there is one theory which has been thoroughly disproved, it’s the theory that by “starving the beast” (cutting taxes) you control growth of government. This is because no one — not even nominally conservative people — pays any attention to phantom debt that will be paid off by other people (in this case, the nation’s children and grandchildren).
The way to control government spending is to raise taxes, dollar for dollar, to cover any increased spending. The Iraq War was never a front burner issue for Americans, because it was fought by other people’s kids with other people’s money. In contrast, Lyndon Johnson drafted kids to fight and raised taxes to pay for his war in Vietnam. People paid attention, for sure.
In life, just showing up is half the battle. In politics, getting voters to care is pretty much the whole war.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Pingback: Anonymous
‘If there is one theory which has been thoroughly disproved, it’s the theory that by “starving the beast”’
Too soon to say, no? Our deficits may yet trigger some cataclysm that does indeed shrink the size of government! But I will certainly agree that it is a *totally retarded* idea. The pretense that there is some ‘beast’ of government, that exists sort of totally separate from the rest of America and can just be ‘starved’ when the time is right (without anyone getting seriously hurt) , has never been more than a weird fig leaf to justify lack of fiscal discipline. It’s sort of like a household budget plan that involves running up the credit cards as much as possible so as to force the credit card companies to put you in a straitjacket next year. Of course if you view the federal budget as a spoils system where the ruling party gets to funnel money to their constituencies, then the ‘spend as much as possible before the other guys regain control’ strategy makes a bit more sense…
Anyway, looking at federal receipts and federal outlays as a percentage of GDP, the symmetry of the problem (dropping income and increasing expenditures over the past two years) is pretty clear.
bbartlog, hi, YES good comment here, DID you start to liken the farm ,and see the benefits of farming. bye
hi bees,
things moving slowly. Thought we’d be all moved out by now but had to do a lot of cleaning, painting and so on so that it won’t be ’til Friday that we get all settled at the new place. Still a lot of gear to pay for too (tractor, chainsaw, feed, shotgun, winter wheat… other miscellaneous items… not to mention livestock TBD).
Lots of mosquitos. The earth there is something else though, black as night and a yard deep. Ohio River Valley bottom. If I can’t grow things here I’ll know for sure it was me and not the land.
I don’t think I’ll really know until a year from now how well I’m suited to it.
Aw how cute…Our resident Leftists have come out of the rafters because they smell cheese.
How ya been, boyz!? Why the long period of nothing to say?
The entire counter-posit of you all, rests on one presumption:
-That the “untold” and “unforeseen”costs are to be included in any and all projections, regardless of how the military has planned for such things, and presuming every self-assumed number as set in-stone…
OK. I’l play along.
If we are going to accept that imaginary numbers are real, I will claim 6 trillion in savings because Iraq is no longer a drain on future counter-Saddam efforts.
I will assume that if Iraq was left alone (per the leftist coda, after 2004), and further predict that Saddam and his sons stayed in power for 20 more years, while creating havoc everywhere, all the time…
Using the Leftist logic, Bush saved America 6 trillion, because he gave 25 million people a chance at freedom, and stopped 20 years of shit-disturbing.
It’s all true, and it should all be added the latest Senate/House budget, because I now assume so.
There… I just eliminated Obama’s debt.
You’re welcome.
@Patvann: using similar logic of course it’s possible to justify any US military effort as a cost-saving exercise. Just be sufficiently imaginative as to the capabilities of the opponent and you can justify positively North Korean levels of military exertion! But you shouldn’t expect to convince other people without a bit more detail as to how Iraq would have done us $trillions in damage (average, mind, not absolute maximum).
Oh, and I see: ‘…because he gave 25 million people a chance at freedom…’. Sorry, I don’t want my tax money spent on liberation of oppressed people around the globe. At least not until we have our affairs in order (i.e. are running a surplus), and maybe not even then. If I thought it were OK to screw up the US to help poor schmucks in other countries, the most efficient way would probably be to open the southern border. But I don’t.
In any case the Iraqis themselves do not seem particularly grateful; presumably things have changed since this poll, but you have to wonder how much. Of course this may seem like staggering ingratitude to the right-wing advocates of liberation, but I think it just shows that war sucks more (for the population on the scene) than you’re willing to give it credit for.
“The GW Bush stimulus created a capital glut, which, along with the Fed monetary policy of indefensibly low interest rates, contributed to the situation of too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities, which led to a decline in lending standards and the pushing of inherently unsafe investment vehicles, such as securitized mortgages and credit default swaps.
Obama’s plan is to withdraw the stimulus (including raising taxes) as the recession ends.
We’ll all get the chance to see whether or not it works.”
Larry the revisionist strikes again.
Actually, a big reason the reduced lending standards is due to the CRA and legal/political pressure to loan to those that were not qualified. This was thanks primarily to the dems/socialists (redundant) including obama himself.
As for the tax increases when the recession ends, I suggest you look at the new taxes coming next year, especially because the recession is not over, but may even be slipping into a depression.
I might take your opinion more seriously Larry if you still weren’t showing signs of obama worship derrangement syndrome.
**remember folks, Larry is the one who predicted obama’s administration picks would be moderates, that he would govern from the center, and that the GOP stood to lose big for ragging on the stimulus and voting against it when the economy came roaring back.**
bbartlog : WaiT till you get in and sleep in it, eat in it and see all the treasure you have for your life time, and your own family life time,, my neighbords just send their last son to his choice of life career,
the ARMY, and they have lived there all their life, and 4 children they own it now from his parents who got it from his parent, they are the best people, I have never met before in my life,they say, it’s the land who speak to them it’s wisdom, and when you begin to hear it, means that the land embrace you with such love, that you never want to leave her. bye
openid aol.com/runnswim: hi, WE can say that they had many voters at the beginning, but they manage to loose so many along the short period, why would you think went wrong?
AND dont say it’s PRESIDENT BUSH again. bye
bbartlog, may I add, that NEW beginnings always require more demands of any things
like money, hard work, extra demands, where some will be only one shot, and when it’s done, the routine sets in,and all we need is to have a program adapted and some discipline,and vision. bye
@Hard Right
Oh, good grief. No one who knows anything at all would say that!
Something like 80% of all the sub-prime loans were for re-finances and investment homes and vacation homes. None of these were part of the CRA. Way fewer than 10% were for owner-occupied first mortgages (the CRA loans). Banks that participated in the CRA program had lower rates of both foreclosure and failure than banks which never participated.
http://traigerlaw.com/publications/The_community_reinvestment_act_of_1977-not_guilty_1-26-09.pdf
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/02/27/academics-on-what-caused-the-financial-crisis/
Blame the poor people. Blame the politicians (including George W Bush, by the way, to his great credit) who tried and succeeded in increasing home ownership among poor people. Blame everyone, save for those who deserve the blame, which were the people who pushed the sub-primes onto people who couldn’t afford them, only to see these people then walk away from their loans (“strategic defaults,” which were NOT the poor people in owner occupied first homes — again, the CRA people!).
And why did they push the loans? Because of the huge capital glut and the lack of anywhere else to put the money, in the middle of both equity and real estate bubbles.
@ilovebees: Obama’s numbers are not all that dissimilar from Reagan’s, at a comparable period in their respective first terms. It’s way too soon to go writing any political obituaries.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Larry
I challenge this statement. Why, you ask? Well, because the recession, as of this moment, has no end in sight, yet the big talk amongst the dems and Obama is rolling back part, most, or all of the Bush tax cuts(raising taxes), and their reasoning is anything but what you have described. The Stimulus has done little to nothing of either jumpstarting any meaningful economic activity or adding jobs(something that is related to economic activity). Add to that a massive new federal entitlement program, which has it’s own inherent tax increases, and we see runaway spending that does nothing for the private sector economic interests.
The dems talk of rolling back those tax cuts is rhetoric that is centered around the class warfare gambit they so love. If nothing else, it proves, once again, that their goal is not an improved economy, nor wisdom on financial matters, but a desire for retaining power for the sake of retaining power.
@John (#19)
As I wrote, we’ll all get the chance to see how this plays out.
Here’s the way I see it, however.
Firstly, I challenge your interpretation that the stimulus provided negligible economic benefit. Let me quote from the article which you, yourself, cited:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/08/24/general-us-stimulus-cost_7874976.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews
This is key. We are, indeed, out of the recession. We are looking at 2.5% annualized economic growth, as contrasted with the 2% annualized contraction which would have occurred, absent the stimulus (figures from the article you cited).
Consumer credit card debt is going down substantially. Business are sitting on hordes of cash.
What’s happening is that businesses are not hiring. What is going on now has to be compared to what happened near the end of the 19th Century and in the 1930s. Businesses are taking advantage of the economic meltdown to re-invent themselves. They have shed the least productive employees and they aren’t going to hire them back. They have learned to do without them. They are going to take the money saved and put it into new ventures and new ways of doing existing ventures. We are at the beginning of a major economic transformation. The old jobs aren’t coming back, no matter who is in office and no matter what economic policies are in effect at the federal level.
Real estate won’t go any lower. Now is a great time to buy. Why? Because, in the most depressed areas, houses are selling for less than their replacement costs. Even here, in the most depressed areas of California (e.g. the “Inland Empire”). And interest rates will never again be this low, in decades.
Anyway. You’ve made your assessment and predictions. I’ve made mine. We’ll see what happens.
P.S. And don’t look now, but Government Motors is tooling along pretty good.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
275 Billion of the Stimulus went for tax cuts. That was about 1/3 of the total. Another 1/3 went to help states pay salaries for teachers firemen and police (Curt ?) and 1/3 went to jobs.
@Larry
Number one, I didn’t cite that or any other article you claim in your post that I did.
Number two, I agree with your assessment that business won’t be hiring back to any jobs they shed during this recession, and that new ventures will be engaged in. Much of the cash reserves that businesses are sitting on now will be put to use in the future. But that is the question, isn’t it? When will that future get here? I don’t see it happening on Obama’s watch for the simple reason that he, and his congressional leadership, have created such high uncertainty in the business world that no one is willing to engage in risk. And that risk has become much greater due to the uncertainty.
Number three, there is absolutely no way to gauge just how many jobs were “saved or created” due to the Stimulus. For anyone to claim any amount of certainty in those numbers is intellectually dishonest. Much of the stimulus money has gone to projects, which, by their very nature, do not add permanent jobs, either in the labor directly involved, or that which manufacturers add for the short term demand of material. And the temporary actions of the stimulus have just about exhausted themselves. Then what? Who provides the money to keep those “created” jobs? Businesses won’t, as I detailed in the previous statement.
Number four, I agree with your statement on Real Estate, but the problem is that there aren’t very many people right now who have the excess kind of income that opens them up financially to buy.
Number five, I think you are way off the mark talking about GM “tooling along pretty good.” A little honest movement of numbers on their books would tell a completely different story. They still have lost market shares to Ford (and believe me, being a Chevy guy from way back doesn’t make that an easy pill to swallow). Their “repaid” loan, was repaid using money from TARP. Essentially, they repaid the lender with the lender’s money(of which none of it has to be paid back.) The American taxpayer has basically zeroed their loan balance. And, what’s more, those investors who lost money during the restructuring of their debt are still out their investments.
Some of what you claim is true, but the rosy outlook is definitely not shared.
@John Ryan 21
Problem was the way that “tax cuts” were given out.
Obamas economists believe that the GDP is the metric of a good economy… ie how much money changes hands. They don’t care what that money is doing, as long as its changing hands.
They gave the tax credit directly to consumers, who then spent it on basic living expenses… many of which are foreign products, or imported foreign goods (oil)… or used to to pay down debt (gave it to banks).
This did help the GDP, but did NOT focus that money where it would have done the most good… ie giving AMERICAN businesses a Tax break… Consumer spending does not directly create American Jobs…. while American BUSINESS spending does.
IMO the tax credit was more a Vote buying scheme (see? we gave YOU money), than somthing that was supposed to help the economy.
@JohnGalt
I got you mixed up with “DrJohn (#7).
Too many Johns around here. Sorry.
Thanks for the rest of your entirely reasonable comments. I’ll let you have the last word.
- Larry
@Mr. Ryan
This article contradicts that claim of tax cuts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html
And here is another speaking about the “tax cuts” in general.
http://www.itaxrebate.com/stimulus/stimulus-package-tax-relief-breakdown
It is an intellectually dishonest statement to claim either your number, or that they are, indeed, tax cuts. A tax credit is not an overall tax cut, but a targeted one, and as such, does not help the majority of taxpayers in the country.
Much of the targeted “tax cuts” when towards the earned income credit, of which all is refundable, including that which takes one above and beyond what they paid in over the year. Essentially, it is a payment to some, from others. Redistribution.
Other large portions are devoted to providing tax credits to individuals who jump through the necessary hoops to obtain them, or happen to fall in the particular category that is necessary to obtain them. Among these are:
-Tax credits for college. What about the millions of earners who have no college in their immediate future? No tax cut for them.
-Tax credits for first time homebuyers. What about the millions of earners who aren’t in the market for a home as first time buyer? No tax cut for them.
-Tax credit for families with three or more children. What about the millions of earners who do not have at least three children? No tax cut for them.
-Tax credits for making homes energy efficient. What about the millions of earners who do not have the economic resources available to install different windows, solar energy devices, better insulation, newer appliances, or more efficient furnaces and air conditioning? No tax cut for them.
Then we have that which is called tax cuts, but are, in fact, nothing more than federal outlays that can be ‘claimed’, in the loosest terms possible, to reduce taxes.
There are no true tax cuts given in the bill, either individually or for business. There are only targeted reductions, given to small groups, and individually, many of whom do not actually owe taxes at all, and haven’t since the Bush tax cuts went into effect.
@Larry
Apology accepted, and yes, there are quite a few “Johns” around here, lol.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I literally laughed out loud at that one.
@Aye 27
Yep, someone owes me a new keyboard… coffee everywhere…
If you take the GDP, and subtract the Deficit spending of our Government, we are still in a recession, and will be for some time to come.
Or, in other words, we are propping up our GDP numbers by borrowing… and only Washington economists somehow believe that you can borrow your way out of debt…
Or… whats that famous Lincoln line? You can fool some of the people…
openid aol.com/runnswim: YOU see, you mix names in directing your comments, that can happen to anyone; THAT’s what the MAJORITY GOVERNMENT is doing; THEY mix secret bills inside a multi page bigger bill: THEY mix OPEN BORDERS WITH ARIZONA’s DEMANDS: THEY mix STIMULUS with TAX cut: THEY mix OILSPILL with mandatory bill to stop oil digging busyness:
WHAT is it with them?, THEY dont seems to know, what’s right or wrong, that’s scary.
Boy that passed healthcare bill is sure helping the economy, eh Larry?
Isn’t that another of your “guarantees”?
Pricing and availability of insurance is better now too!!!!
Ahhh. The warm glow of knowing how GREAT this economy now is!
@Pat(#30):
Health care bill was a signature achievement. I’m proud of the many politicians (including possibly Obama) who sacrificed their careers to make it a reality. Now that it’s passed, I’m happy to see the GOP gain control of Congress, as they did in 1994, as I believe that the very best government is a Dem President and a GOP Congress. I’ll be voting, as usual, for Dana Rohrabacher, my conservative/libertarian/surfer representative of California’s 46th.
But health care was the big one, with financial regulation a distant #2. If health care doesn’t get foolishly overturned, it will ensure Obama’s historical standing with the near greats, and Pelosi’s, as the most important House Speaker of this generation.
P.S. I do like to make predictions. I’m also predicting Michigan will win 7 games and Rodriquez will be fired (TG’dness). I’m not so foolish as to “guarantee” anything.
- Larry W/HB
*I think I just threw up a little in my mouth*
Oh yes Larry, they’ll have “historical standing”, I’m sure of that.
@Larry
Seems you and I are in different camps here as well, lol. I would say that if RR wins 7 games, and UM fires him, that would be a travesty. It’s not often in sports anymore that a guy is given enough time to truly implement his systems, in play, teaching, and types of players, to truly see what he can do. I personally like RR and hope that this can be a breakout season for the program under his watch.
Go Blue!!!
Larry, are you on Drugs?? Sorry, but you are WAY out there friend!! Oh, never mind, I see now, you are from Commiefornia…. you guys are exempt from rational thought…. seeing how smartly you fellows handle your own state economy and budget……
As to Obamacare, I hope it’s the first thing that gets TOSSED when the Libs get shown the door!! Reform, yes, all for it. But the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Clusterpuck bill??? No way in Hell friend!
@John
As one who sat on an icy bench in the Big House before it was called the Big House and was one of the half million people who swear they were there in ’69, to witness in person the greatest ‘M’ win of all time (against Rex Kern, Jim Otis, and Woody), all I can say is that it took decades to get to the point where we could recruit NFL-quality QBs and we tossed it all away for a fad offense which will last as long as the wishbone did. Plus I don’t like the way already too lax academic standards have been further “relaxed” and I hate having the program in the NCAA-rule infractions gutter. Plus, the guy ranks right up there with Bobby Petrino, as regards program loyalty. They should have gone after Jim Harbaugh.
- Larry W/HB (Ann Arbor, 1968-77)
JOHN G AND LARRY Michigan and RR(I like him) go into South Bend 9/21 in one of football’s greatest rivalries.Watch All American receiver Michael Floyd light em up.N.D 31-27 GO IRISH
CORRECTION Game is 9/11 Two winningest progams in college football history.
@Hankster58
HEY!!!
Curt, Skooks, Donald and I are all living here in CA!
We’re trying to fix it, but we’re a bit outnumbered…You’ll find Larry here, at the forefront of the cognitive dissonance that pervades the place .
So you guys are in a “David vs. Goliath” situation?!?!?!?! What optimists you 3 must be!! LOL!!! Well God love ya…… as to your last comment…. yeah, we see that out here in the Mid-West….
I actually live in the Socialist State of Washington… but still as left coast as left coast can get… with the exception of Eastern Washington… they’re still sane on the eastern side of the Cascade mountains. Eastern Washington is the only thing keeping us from being as weird as California… oh and we have Oregon between us and California which helps strain out a few before they get to our border.
Hmmm
I wonder why the heck I though you were down here…Too much acid in the 70′s, I guess.
I think Oregon might be slightly more nuts than we are, except for the “impact” our shear volume of of said nuts. It’s like they have concentrated nuts, or something. Granted it was the Calinuts that migrating there 30 years ago that made it that way, but the assimilation is complete…
Except for one small island of sanity that may indeed outweigh entire counties in Oregon.
The locals fear that place, and whole mythologies have been created just to keep the children scared enough not to approach her dwelling, lest they learn her truth.
Every liberal quivers and recoils at the mere whisper of her name.
If it weren’t for the weather I would be out of this state in a heartbeat but living a few blocks from the sand in Huntington Beach and the best year round weather in this country is hard to leave behind. We are definitely outnumbered by the liberals but the more east you go the more Republican you get. The weather just sucks. Got friends in Redding, CA, and its as red an area as you can get but during the summer it gets to over 110+.
As the years go by the more I think about moving from this place tho….great weather or not.
I don’t know… we have pretty damn good weather in Seattle… of course we are very temperate here. If it gets above 68 I’m looking for air conditioning… and even in the winter its pretty much shirtsleeve weather. Sure we tell everyone that it rains all the time, but that’s too keep people from coming here. It rains more on an annual basis in Atlanta or Houston. Shhhh… that’s a secret, we don’t want the info getting out.
DONALD BLY: Smart way to keep jobs for your own people. bye
Spin all you want Larry, the credit crash was thanks primarily to the dems and their looting, not tax cuts. I’m not surprised you try to claim otherwise. Your grip on reality isn’t too firm.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338629,00.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/09/29/who-caused-the-biggest-financial-crisis-since-the-great-depression/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html
So tell us Larry, has Obama been governing from the center? Have his picks been moderates?
Is the recession over or ending?
Seattle is nice Don….don’t get me wrong. I just need more sun, the place gets dreary. Couple that with pretty much the same amount of liberals (or maybe even more) as we have in So. Cal and I’ll pass.
Yeah, when it hits 100 with those 60%+ humidity days… I think of moving!! LOL!! or When the ice coats the roads…. flipped our blazer over last winter… so, I can see your point there!!
@hard
David Brooks describes Obama as a “moderate Democrat.” Objectively speaking, that’s precisely what he (Obama) is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/opinion/15dowd.html
With regard to the financial meltdown:
No, it wasn’t caused by the CRA and it wasn’t caused by Fanny/Freddy. 2/3 of the bad loans were made by private banks totally unrelated to Fanny/Freddy. Fanny/Freddy got involved with the bad loans for the same reason the purely private banks did — they wanted to make money for their investors and they made bad decisions, but they were part of a larger herd, all making the same bad decisions. No one who knows anything claims that the crisis was caused by the CRA (how could it, when the total value of bad CRA loans, by dollar value, was a low single digit minuscule portion of total bad loans).
Your 4 referenced links all try to make the case that it was the CRA and Fanny/Freddie. That’s nuts and no one believes it because it isn’t true. The numbers prove it. CRA was a tiny fraction of the total and the CRA banks did better than the non-CRA banks. Fanny/Freddie were a part of the problem but a minority part of the problem.
Why did the sub-prime market get started in the first place? It wasn’t out of the CRA. It was because there was no good place to invest, in an economy with a GLUT of capital and a stock market bubble which everyone could see.
The money had to go somewhere. It could have been invested in new business and new industries. It wasn’t. It went into crazy new investment schemes, the biggest being the securitized mortgages. Only there weren’t enough prime mortgages to satisfy the investment demand. This led to the subprime market. Too much capital. Not enough good opportunities. Creation of new opportunities. It was all capital driven. It had nothing at all to do with social do-gooders trying to get poor people into houses. That was never a part of it.
Not a single banker who’s bank ever failed ever blamed the CRA. Not one. Because the CRA bore no blame at all. it was all capital-driven insanity.
You ever hear Greenspan blame the CRA? Find me any reputable, credible economist who blames the CRA and I’ll buy you a $150 dinner at the Villa Nova Restaurant in Newport Beach, the next time you visit Southern California. http://www.villanovarestaurant.com/
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Larry
We will see what RR and the team bring to the table this year. I don’t think of the offense as a ‘fad’ offense, particularly when some NFL teams are running similar offenses very effectively. RR is certainly no Bo, and no one mistakes him for what we believe as one of the greatest coaches of all time, but RR is effective in his own way, and given time, the excitement for UM football will be breathtaking.
As for the program’s recruiting standards becoming ‘lax’, I don’t buy it. One particularly big name recruit was not accepted, despite his ratings, and some have been dropped from the program during RR’s tenure due to lack of maintaining their grades.
I am rooting for a BIG season, and despite Mr. Wheeler’s prediction, UM will roll of ND easily.
UConn — Win
ND — win
UMASS — win
BG — win
Indiana – win
MSU — loss
Iowa — loss
Penn St — loss
Illinois — win
Purdue — win
Wisky — loss
tOSU — loss
RR wins 7 games, but loses 5 of the last 7 and he’s out of there.
Offense will have moments. Defense will have some big embarrassments in the secondary.
What was great about Bo was that he was in every single game until the end, because he always had a great defense. He never learned to pass, but Lloyd Carr did. RR had the nucleus of a very good defense bequeathed to him, but fired Carr’s defensive coordinator and still doesn’t have anyone who knows how to coach defense.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking with it.
- L, formerly of A2
You have it exactly backwards. That’s not an accident tho. It’s the only way you can avoid blaming the dems for the current mess.
David Brooks? If you actually think he’s a Republican and that he is a valid source, you are nuts. Larry, now I remember why I called you delusional. You are so far gone into your fantasy bubble it’s pathological.
How about the recession? Is it ending? If not, why do you think raising taxes is a good idea in a recession?
The CRA forced private banks to loan to less than suitable borrowers… or else the feds wouldn’t allow them to open additional branches and expand, but since Fannie and Freddie would buy the paper… why not.
@Donald:
Please read the following, which was not written by bloggers and/or pundits, but which, instead, was written by Federal Reserve Economists:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136
“Another way to measure the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis is to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods that are classified by income. Data made available by RealtyTrac on foreclosure filings from January 2006 through August 2008 indicate that most foreclosure filings (e.g., about 70 percent in 2006) have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods. More important, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.9/ (See Table 7.)
“Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.”
These are facts:
1. CRA participating banks made fewer bad loans than non-CRA participating banks
2. The total dollar amount of CRA related defaults was a tiny fraction of total subprimes and total defaults
3. Fanny/Freddie losses were a fraction of total losses. Fanny/Freddie did the same things as did purely private financial institutions and for the same reasons — they were all motivated by making profits for their shareholders.
I’ll make you the same offer that I made to Hard in post #48. Find me an actual, reputable economist (not a political pundit or blogger) who’ll put his/her reputation on the line to assert that the CRA was in any way a cause of the financial meltdown and I’ll buy you dinner (which you can either eat with me or without me, at your choice).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@ post #53:
I’m sure you know the real story.
Bad loans resulted from inadequate financial industry oversight at all levels.
From the loan officer on up, quick money could be made by providing loans to people who weren’t really qualified to get them. The big money was in high volume. To generate high volume, you needed to authorize unacceptable risks. No problem! The unacceptable risks could easily be concealed and passed on up the chain. Often the concealment began by misleading the potential borrowers themselves, downplaying the risk of ARMs and assuring them that the rapidly increasing value of their property would make later refinancing easy. It wasn’t uncommon to misstate applicants’ income on their loan applications, often without the borrower’s knowledge. The financial industry was out beating the bushes for borrowers to make loans to. I remember televison ads, phone calls, daily offers in my mailbox…
Such loans were ultimately bundled into complex investment packages, given deliberately misleading ratings, and offered on the global market to unsuspecting investors.
It was one of the biggest financial scams in history, and highly successful for the people who pulled it off. For the most part they escaped with their loot and left investors and taxpayers holding the bag.
@Greg (#54)
What you are describing is simply the mechanism; you are not considering the root cause.
The root cause is precisely what I said: too much money chasing too few investment opportunities.
The following is a wikipedia quote, which I know in advance will elicit derisive scorns, but it’s currently 4:30 AM and it’s the best short summary I could find in my (hopefully also short) journey back to bed for a few more zzzzs:
The background is that the world money supply of liquid capital (largely in dollars) roughly doubled, from 36 trillion dollars to 70 trillion dollars in only 6 years (2000 – 2006). During the same time, US treasury yields were reduced from 6.5% to 1%, as Fed Chairman Greenspan sought to promote sufficient growth in the US economy to offset the deficits caused by the massive tax cuts which were the Bush administration’s version of a Keynesian stimulus to kick start the economy out of a mild recession. So the problem was, what do US capital managers and investors do with all the money flowing in from the tax cuts? Who can resist borrowing money to invest (i.e. “leverage”), with capital rates so low? What do Asia and the Middle East do with all the dollars they’ve got from selling us consumer electronics, clothes, and oil, when all they can get out of T-Bills is 1%?
Here’s the wiki quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
Scroll down to High-risk mortgage loans and lending/borrowing practices
Anyway, this is supply side economics run amok; it’s not do gooders forcing financial institutions against their will to lend money to poor people to buy houses.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
For those who are interested, Larry’s arguments regarding housing, mortgages, and the CRA have already been ground to dust here at FA.
You can go here and here and here and here to find out more.
Oh, and Larry….here’s an economist who lays the blame on the CRA.
WHAT GET’s me is; those DEMOCRATS who come here, and throw their weight around
SAYING, NO it wasnt cause by… or read the following.. or it was not told by BLOGGERS or PUNDITS…WHAT do they think they are; SURELY not better than our conservatives who tells it like it is, THE TRUTH that everyone understand; BEING a majority, they did’nt show much to
THE AMERICANS, they are not equipt to come here and throw their weight around
LIKE ROMAN CONQUERER, to polites conservatives,who use a lot of TOLERANCE,
BUT are smart enough to be able to demolish their big words
A.C. and friends.Re Mortgage/R.E. industry.One thing I always learned in my years as a stockbroker 70′s,realtor 80′s and early 90′s, mortgage broker and banker 1998-2007 is a great secretary/admin.assist./processor is worth her/his weight in gold.I’ve always been a lousy,slow typist.NO SUPRISE.
Larry Villa Nova in N.B. a great restaurant near where I worked in Irvine in mortgage business.Unfortunately can’t take your dinner bet becaus I agree with most of what you’ve posted(will take N.D.+7 vs Mich)
Greg#54 This post quite succinctly tells the story.Ground Zero for the mortgage melt down was Irvine/NPB Ca.I was part of it. Brokers and bankers were making high risk no doc sometimes no down loans, often “hiding” large commissions.The mantra was “don’t worry values are increasing 15%+ a year and we’ll re-fi you into conventional loan in a couple of years” A little older than most ,I knew or should have known better having heard similar false prophecies in stock market over the years.
Early 2006 you could see the problem.Home SALES began dropping dramatically though values held through the year. 2007 the s hit the fan.
IMHO to blame Dems or Repubs for this meltdown is either too simple or too complex.How’s that for analysis.”Greed is good” definately played a major role.
I’d expand but rather than bore you my invite is to The Fisherman for sunset dinner and cocktails on the pier here in San Clemente Ca.Enjoy the rest of the summer.
Aye claims I was “ground into the dust.” By that he means that I was one guy against a tag team and, when the times came that we were just left going around and around, I just let it go. I’m sure that’s the way the present debate will end up, also. Last man standing method of awarding the championship belt. That’s OK. As good as any other way, absent a neutral jury.
Anyway, Aye did come up with an actual economist, DiLorenzo (who’s utterly wrong — see below, as well as seeing the links I previously provided); so I’ll keep my promise. Next time Aye’s in town, if he wishes, I’ll organize a dinner for him and any local So Cal people who want to join in and I’ll be happy to pick up Aye’s (and Curt’s, if he can make it) portions of the check.
Before offering a refutation of the arguments made by Aye’s Austrian school economist, DiLorenzo, I’d like to ask him to recall the fall election, circa 2008. The economy was in free fall and so were the election prospects of McCain and the entire GOP congressional caucus. Anyone remember McCain blaming the Democrats and the CRA in any of the debates? Anyone remember any prominent GOP candidate for office blaming the meltdown on the Democrats and the CRA? Is this because the GOP pols are all nice, polite people, who would think it rude to blame the Democrats for economic woes threatening to sink their party? They didn’t make those charges, because they are utterly absurd.
The essay below is a direct answer to DiLorenzo (Aye’s Austrian school economist)
http://hir.harvard.edu/blog/jason-lakin/mad-money-profits-not-cra-drove-the-sub-prime-debacle
P.S. With respect to the following quote (from above) –
“That is, nine out of every ten sub-prime mortgages to risky borrowers had nothing to do with CRA.”
Even this mis-states the CRA’s degree of “culpability.” CRA loans were less than one in ten by volume, but the average CRA loan had a very low dollar amount and most of the subprimes went for re-finances, investments, and vacation homes — mostly in better neighborhoods and for much larger dollar amounts. So the CRA portion of the bad debt pie, by actual dollar amounts, was a tiny pittance of the total.
I do agree with DiLorenzo on one thing. The Fed (i.e. Greenspan) played a huge role in creating the capital glut and in directing foreign investment away from US treasuries (which were paying only 1% interest) and into collateralized debt obligations. But, again, the real driver behind the meltdown was supply side economics run amok.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
RE #59 “irresponsible lending practices of major financial institutions were not caused by CRA, but by the search for speculative profit wherever it could be found.”True
Randal Hoven updates his post, discusses the $3 trillion figure and finds that argument…..”specious sophistry” because future Stimulus costs are not figured into the comparison. And so it is, the Stimulus cost has already been revised….up. who knows how much more it will rise as the unread law, full of who knows what, is eventually interpreted.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/does_barely_true_mean_true.html
Pingback: Financial Statements… : 101 Dead Armadillos
The primary contribution to the deficit is the Bush tax cuts of 2001/2003. We’d have a budget SURPLUS if they hadnt been passed. Source? The CBO.
The initial estimate of the Iraq was was $50B. And the true cost of the Iraq was will be much greater then 790B. There are many factors not being taken into account by the CBO – read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html
The economic stimulus would of been passed regardless of what president was in place. Every single reputable economic advisor recommended this action to prevent a full blown depression.
Bush started the bailouts while he was still in office – the bank bailouts were passed during his reign.
Its utter nonsense. The GOP these days is a joke. They are the primary reason for this mess, and all they have done the past 2 years is obstruct and argue, while Obama has tried very very hard to stay center.
Netmonger #62 Absolutely agree.
You’re ignoring an important difference between dollars spent on the war and dollars spent on the stimulus: Stimulus dollars went back into the US economy, providing jobs in the short term and funding projects that will continue to provide positive returns in the long term. Money spent on the Iraq War was money down a rat hole. It bought us what? Benefited us how? What we got was a trillion bucks more debt and a couple more trillion in future costs to deal with the lingering damages.
Saddam is gone? Great. But that wasn’t our responsibility. Getting rid of Saddam was the responsibility of the Iraqi people. People appreciate and protect their freedom when they’ve earned it.
What sound conservative logic lets a president start a war without feeling a need to budget the money to pay for it? Or worse still, lets him start a war and cut taxes, when we were just getting out of a chronic deficit spending pattern that had plagued us for years?
There’s no consistent logic there at all.
@Monroe:
Eeewww, that was a lots of dollars, and for what, 9.6% unemployment and over a trillion in debt when you factor in the interest. Not forgetting the underemployed and those that have given up looking, makes it what? some say as much as 18% unemployed. Pretty expensive jobs and a lot of them are already……over.
Well, that money is still benefitting us. Ever wonder where all those Humvees are made? Indiana
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-118256149/mishawaka-ind-army-humvee.html
but maybe not for long:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1A93F611-18FE-70B2-A81D0DF7F754E06E
Up-armoring….Armor Holdings Inc. Fairfield, Ohio…O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt
Oh my, armed robots:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/08/armed-robots-so/
How about body armor, there were a number of US plants participating, if memory serves, here’s one:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/point-blank-solutions-wins-three-year-detroit-police-department-contract-2010-09-07?reflink=MW_news_stmp
Helmets and assault packs, again, this was probably not the only plant manufacturing…..Helmets:
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=9682886
Uniforms… and this was in 2004 and I bet there’s more than one plant:
Then there are other necessities to think about that are war expenditures produced in the good old United States that employed patriots who no doubt were proud of their part as well as appreciative of that paycheck they picked up at the end of the week to spend within our economy.
Other companies I came across that benefited from the WOT:
Apparel Garmet Industry Corp., NYC….Defense Supply Center, PA…Velcro, USA, Manchester, NH, tip of the bucket all.
Now Monroe says:
Is this your attempt at a very sad joke, a flat, fall on your face joke? Have you never bothered yourself to study the life Iraqis lived under Saddam? I won’t elaborate, you can visit our archives to find documented horror…. all by yourself. Needless to say, the Iraqis weren’t as equipped to overthrow Saddam as was the Green Revolution in Iran. Figure it out, let’s see if you can.
Monroe opines:
.
Pfft!
The stimulus was three parts…
1. Road and bridge Construction… wonder how much of that money went back to Mexico? and to the UNIONS?
2. The Working peoples tax credit… which was used to either pay down debt, or to buy products… when many of said products are produced overseas…
3. Grants to States for Teachers and such… which while looking good on paper, was a one year “fix” for teachers… which they have now had to do again…