Bush Has Weakened the States of Our Union

The states of our union are weaker five years into war. That's why if Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison had been given the chance to give the Democratic Party reply to Bush's State of the Union, he'd lay out why the best economic stimulus package is to end the war in Iraq. Bush's $150 billion economic stimulus package represents a little over ONE year in war funding.

We're currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, more than $2.5 billion a week.

Minnesota's citizens have paid $ 11 billion for the war through 2007. For that amount, the state could have provided: *over 3 million people with health care OR * over 13 million homes with renewable electricity OR * 1300 new elementary schools OR * almost 70,000 affordable housing units OR * over 3.5 million children with health care OR *over 1.5 million Head Start places for Children OR * almost 200,000 elementary school teachers

These kinds of tradeoffs are true for every state in the union.

Comments (29)

1. the best economic stimulus package is to end the war in Iraq.

   That is the precise connection that should be stressed over and over again: THE WAR IN IRAQ IS WHAT IS KILLING OUR ECONOMY!!!

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/28/2008 @ 10:34pm

2. Posted by METTEYYA 01/28/2008 @ 10:34pm

   METT, I disagree. It doesn't take 5 years to wreak an economy. There are other forces involved.

   Posted by ACook at 01/28/2008 @ 10:41pm

3. KVH: The states of our union are weaker five years into war.

   Perhaps in Minnesota.....but NOT in Texas, Oklahoma, California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Georgia and quite a few other states that have grown nicely.....even if we have a mild Recession sometime soon.

   Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 10:47pm

4. That is the precise connection that should be stressed over and over again: THE WAR IN IRAQ IS WHAT IS KILLING OUR ECONOMY!!!

   Posted by METTEYYA 01/28/2008 @ 10:34pm

   The War started in March, 2003....why don't you go back and see how "OUR ECONOMY" did for the next 3~4 years.....seems to me it was about that time, the `jobless recovery' from the Clinton Recession (of 2001), started producing real job growth.

   You are already losing credibility w/your FRANKish worship of Obama, and this comment above?????

   You are already in danger of becoming like FRANKG in your `devotion' to Obama......and this comment above

   Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 10:54pm

5. Oops......well, shit,......guess "Preview" is there for a reason!

   Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 10:56pm

6. Posted by MARKCANYON 01/28/2008 @ 11:10pm

   When it comes to the economy, I agree w/you Libs/Progs are "soft in the head".....but, it's NOT that they are making Americans dumber than they are, THEY ARE DUMBER THAN MOST AMERICANS!

   Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 11:21pm

7. Posted by HAPPY 01/28/2008 @ 10:54pm

   The Iraq war, unlike wars of the past, have put our tax money in too few hands, and is therefore incapable of stimulating and growing the economy.

   The conventional thinking in the past was that war was the answer to our economic woes, as factories would turn out boots, bullets, and tanks that would lift our economy out of any recession.

   Times have changed...

   The wars of today are "limited wars" (thank God), in which the "enemy" is much smaller and therefore the economic output necessary to sustain war efforts against such enemy are narrowly defined and often do not require large-scale production of goods.

   Just think, how many tanks have been destroyed in Iraq compared to the wars of the past? What about guns, boots, or any other "war product"? It is the limited nature of the present wars that require new thinking when it comes to economics, in which the "multiplier effect" on our economy is no longer present.

   In fact, when you look at the war economics issue more deeply, we are seeing a new kind of economic drain rather than a stimulus. Often these new wars are financed with government debt, and the interest on this debt prevents us from spending our way out of a recession. The new wars may even cause a "reverse multiplier effect" on the economy, in which increasing interest payments, increasing debt, and increasing debt ceilings crowds out other budget priorities and private investment, leaving no money left to grow the economy.

   The lack of broad-based production activity, decreased budget flexibility, and much lower savings and investment associated with these new wars means an eventual economic meltdown that is far worse than any recession.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/28/2008 @ 11:38pm

8. Posted by MARKCANYON 01/28/2008 @ 11:10pm

   Actually defense spending is much much more when you take into account the fact that the war is off the budget. God you guys sure can spin the percentages can't you. Here's the actual percentage. The United states department of defense = 481.4 Billion dollars. The Global War on Terror = 145.2 Billion dollars. The wars in afghanistan and Iraq we will go with a low estimate of 120 Billion. Total 743.6 Billion dollars. 2007s Budget submited by the president himself estimates 2.9 Trillion dollars last year. Now the war isn't take into account on the fiscal budget because its considered and appropriation. So if you take into JUST the first two you are at 23% of the total budget remember all of these are the numbers from Bush himself. So the defense without the wars added in is already 1/4th of the budget. Now add in the cost of the wars = 25.6%. So no as you lied defense is about 25% or 1/4th of the total budget. Get your numbers right. By the way all those numbers I just threw at you are from the president himself.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/28/2008 @ 11:53pm

9. Oh and by the way I was being generous enough to leave out the department of veteran's affairs, Homeland security, NASA and then all of the things that state of the Fiscal Budget as black budget for the CIA, FBI and NSA. So I estimated a little lower than what the actual percent going towards Defense is. Thank your president for the numbers I just quoted. An as I am quoting them directly from the 2007 fiscal year budget you can't really refute them.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/28/2008 @ 11:58pm

10. Oh I also left out the Interest paid on the National Debt to pay for these wars also. which is another 281 billions dollars. Wow we spend a lot to wage war in one year.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/28/2008 @ 11:59pm

11. The Iraq war, unlike wars of the past, have put our tax money in too few hands, and is therefore incapable of stimulating and growing the economy.

    Posted by METTEYYA 01/28/2008 @ 11:38pm

    sure it has. chinese hands and chinese economies.

    i hear "The Golden Dragon Iron Works and Missile Factory" is buying Mount Rushmore.

    for 23¢ on the dollar.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 12:32am

12. One can safely say a majority of the public no longer want hsuB to lead our country in the wrong direction and that was soon after 2002. Uhmmm, now what major thing happened after 2002...? And why congress's poll numbers, as a whole, are slightly lower than hsuB's-- congress has not taken hsuB's disaster of a faulty disleadership 'away' (and the same reason why parents that provide the booze for their underage children to drive drunk while playing with guns-- get charged with a crime):

    NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Jan. 20-22, 2008. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.4.

    "Who do you want to see take the lead role in setting policy for the country: George W. Bush or the Congress?"

    Date___________Bush___Congress__Shared__Neither__Unsure

    1/20-22/08______ 21______ 62_______ 10______4_______3

    1/07____________22_______57_______16______3_______2

    1/06____________25_______49_______16______7_______3

    1/02____________44_______32_______22______1_______1

    http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm#misc

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/29/2008 @ 12:41am

13. CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. Adults nationwide.

    "Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic Party is in control of Congress?" N=494 adults, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)

    Date____________Good____Bad___Neither__Unsure

    12/6-9/07________53_______37_____8______2

    6/22-24/07_______57_______31_____7______5

    5/4-6/07_________51_______37_____9______3

    3/9-11/07________59_______29_____6______6

    "Do you approve or disapprove of what the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate have done so far this year?" N=508 adults, MoE ± 4.5 (Form B)

    Date________Approve___Disapprove___Unsure

    12/6-9/07_______39_________56_______6

    10/12-14/07_____43_________51_______6

    6/22-24/07______42_________49_______9

    5/4-6/07________49_________44_______7

    3/9-11/07_______47_________40______13

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/29/2008 @ 12:53am

14. Rio Loco, if hsuB is still the president and still wants to mislead us into one giant shitter, I for one say no way. If you want in-- can I stand on your head?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/29/2008 @ 12:57am

15. CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. Adults nationwide.

    "Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic Party is in control of Congress?" N=494 adults, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)

    Date____________Good____Bad___Neither__Unsure

    12/6-9/07________53_______37_____8______2

    6/22-24/07_______57_______31_____7______5

    5/4-6/07_________51_______37_____9______3

    3/9-11/07________59_______29_____6______6

    "Do you approve or disapprove of what the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate have done so far this year?" N=508 adults, MoE ± 4.5 (Form B)

    Date________Approve___Disapprove___Unsure

    12/6-9/07_______39_________56_______6

    10/12-14/07_____43_________51_______6

    6/22-24/07______42_________49_______9

    5/4-6/07________49_________44_______7

    3/9-11/07_______47_________40______13

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/29/2008 @ 12:53am

    Congress has got to get a backbone. Grip the handle on the tiolet and flush the anti-US Constitution/pro hsuB/cHeney admin new con waste, as the stench is a bit much. Hey, it's only a courtesy...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/29/2008 @ 01:50am

16. OOops, sorry for the double post-- meant for dif.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/29/2008 @ 01:53am

17. Posted by HAPPY 01/28/2008 @ 10:47pm | ignore this person

    So, here we go again, and you were doing so well of late. I thought someone had broken you from the habit of speaking of that which twas proven you know next to nothing about; the way an auto mechanic might tolerate a pretty decent (see I'm even being nice ...) driver after having them constantly confuse a four cylinder with a V-8, but in the end having to fend them off after they approached with saw and hammer in an attempt to re-engineer an overhead cam.

    Sigh ... "even if we have a mild Recession sometime soon."

    Even? In truth I despair of even broaching the subject, as after parsing the numbers in regard to the death rattle of our machine tool sector, you mentioned something about "CD's" ...

    I know, lets try the balance on current accounts shall we? It shows the American increasing dependence upon foreign goods and investments (and the flame upon which Paulson and Bernanke are hellbent on pouring rocket fuel, say it with me ). Our current account deficit doubled to more than $800 billion in 2006, from $400 billion in 2000, and increased tenfold from $80 billion in 1990. At pretty much the same time, the debt of the U.S. economy (as reported by the Fed), has jumped from $14 trillion in 1990, to nearly $50 trillion today. A comparison of the growth of debt and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) shows that since the beginning of this decade, we have incurred nearly $5 in debt for every dollar increase in GDP, giving the lie to the claims of the "fundamental soundness" of the U.S. economy. We are being eaten alive simply by paying the interest on this debt, and there is no possibility of ever paying off the principal. All the ongoing, and seemingly continuing into a "far off" fantasy future, insipid machinations, resolve to using new borrowing to pay off already existing debt, at an accelerating rate (mathematically the curve is gone hyperbolic, I think ...), making us more bankrupt with each passing year.

    "mild Recession"

    As an eminent urban philosopher, has so eloquently stated, "it's whack," as we are not headed for a mild recession, but a whack depression.

    Posted by V at 01/29/2008 @ 04:10am

18. Funny how the radical right always enjoy including the trillions of profits of the top 1-2% nonworking and CEO's as somehow being churned into butter while only being spread atop the Caymans, Swiss, or foreign bank accounts... Hey, that ain't rain trickling down, or is that getting dumped down.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/29/2008 @ 08:22am

19. Posted by MARKCANYON 01/29/2008 @ 04:33am

    Did you not look at the numbers. THAT is the fiscal year budget of the government. Submitted by Bush. I like how you are trying to consider the money someone earns at McDonalds as part of the government's budget. Of course if you go by the GDP it's a small percent but if you look at only what the GOVERNMENT spent not what I spent at the grocery store. It's over 25% of the governments expenditures. You're using the GDP to try to spin the percentages lower but your ignoring the fact that the GDP isn't the GOVERNMENTS yearly budget. The governments budget in 2007 was 2.9 trillion dollars. Sorry to break it to you Mark. But your government spent over 25% of ITS yearly budget on military.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 08:34am

20. Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/29/2008 @ 08:34am |

    CCCO, again, you know what you're dealing with, when you're dealing with MARKGOEBBELS....right?

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 09:12am

21. Happy-Nice of you to compliment an admitted Nazi and state that he is smarter than the left when it comes to the economy which showed how truly ignorant you are.I know you'll respond with your usual double talk and lame spin,but reality is that you just stated that the economy would be better if we got rid of Jews, as that person wants.Your view that the entire left is dumber than most Americans when it comes to the economy means that no one on the left is successful which only shows how ignorant you are.Your belief that most Americans who aren't on the left understand the economy shows how truly ignorant you really are.I'm,actually,not surprised that you are the one agreeing with the Nazi.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 09:51am

22. Rio-You ought to work on your paranoid extremism so your views would sound more sane.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 09:53am

23. Happy-Somehow you managed to make Frankshitz posts seem intelligent in comparison to your post..Reality is that there are people on the left who are far more successful than you are and have a much more knowledge of the economy.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 10:00am

24. jomamma-I'm afraid that his statement did make Franshitz look quite intelligent by comparison.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 10:28am

25. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/29/2008 @ 10:37am

    Not sure, but think LIBSWARNEDU...is CONSHAME.

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 10:45am

26. Posted by MASK 01/29/2008 @ 09:12am

    No why should I be warned of something?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 12:05pm

27. It's funny how much of a difference in which people perceive the military budget. Even if lets say mark is right and government spending on military is only 5% of the GDP that doesnt take in the billions on top of that being spent for research on weapons, weapon design and manufacture, oil imports going to military, food going to military, micro-chip imports and pharmaceuticals. So even if you are considering the GDP as the point of percentage which most people don't you still are grossly misinterpreting how much money goes to defense because you are only taking in GOVERNMENT spending in the economic indicator that show the entirety of the nations corporate spending. So you have to take into account how much from corporations is also being spent. So there is still a largely substantial amount of money going to military. Considering most people consider the defense industry to be the most profitable in this country.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 12:23pm

28. Posted by MARKCANYON 01/29/2008 @ 1:25pm

    Why then is the civilian economy in the hole when the military spending is higher than it has been in a long time?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:58pm

29. Also I'm not saying we should not spend anything on military. I am saying that you are misrepresenting their amount of the governments budget. We need defense. But I don't think the amount we are spending on them now is going toward anything good. We like to say it has stop the terrorist attacks but give me proof that the terrorists have even tried to attack? Happy or Jom said it led to more arrests. But most of those arrested have been set free. So give me proof that it has helped.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 2:01pm