Originally Posted by Fedaykin
Are you blind, deaf dumb or just that ****ing stupid?
See the line that says: SUBTOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS FY2001 Through FY2011, Constant $2011 -- $2,657.3?
Notice how it ****ing says through 2011, not 2012?
You know it's 2013, right? meaning at least one additional fiscal year (i.e. 2012) of spending has occurred above and beyond the figure there. The average is $240bn a year, so
2657+240 = $2897bn ~=$3T
So you're just going to keep extrapolating those numbers out as we go and pretend like everything in the budget that changed since 2001 is part of Bush' Iraq/Afghan war effort? Even though Bush hasn't had any say on spending decisions since 2008? DHS's budget was never higher than Obama's first two years when he had an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Yet you not only count DHS dollars completely unrelated to Iraq or Afghanistan, you keep tallying Democratic budget increases in that department under the "Bush did it!" column. There's nothing rational about this approach.
Another point of contention:
The Senate vote for authorizing use of force in Afghanistan was 97-0. We were going to war in Afghanistan whether Bush was president or not. In fact Obama talked at length in 2008 about how the war in Iraq took resources away from the 'good' war in Afghanistan. So if we take him at his word, had we not invaded Iraq, he would've spent even more in Afghanistan. In what fantasmical alternate universe was war in the Afghan theater not going to happen? Think back to 9/11. War somewhere was predetermined. And that can't be blamed on Bush.
Last time I checked, the entire purpose of the huge build up in HS is the same justification for Afghan/Iraq: the "War on Terror". Of course, you also keep ignoring that the point is that the total cost of all the wars going on (no matter if you leave off HS or not) is far, far more than a single years deficit, especially if you exclude that portion of the deficit that is coming from those wars.
Bull****. This conversation was specifically about Iraq and Afghanistan. Read back. Bringing in DHS spending is changing the subject. Not to mention, again, DHS' budget was never as high under Bush as Obama. You can't pretend like absolutely everything we've done since 2001 was Bush's decision, or that it would've worked out any different with anyone else. How about all those body scanners in airports? What's the story there? Those were a response by Obama's DHS to the Christmas Day bomber in 2009. Were those expenses removed from your study? Of course not. They're still filed under the "Bush's fault/War on Terror" column. Because this "study" lacks any credibility.
Do you honestly believe under another President after 9/11, there would've been no push for increased airport security budgets? Hint: DHS was formed with a 90-9 vote in the Senate. Again, your fantasyland projection here assumes that none of this money would have been spent if not for Bush. That's certifiably insane, given the reality of what happened back then.
But really that's all just a nice distraction on your part. Because this conversation was all about and only about Iraq and Afghanistan. Fun game you've got going here though... ignoring the clear CBO report on what those two wars cost so you can bring in some study that doesn't even pretend to be studying the same thing.
"Iraq and Afghanistan are expensive because of airport baggage scans and interest payments!" -Fed