popbanner12.png

« Score One For France | Main | Sanford Scores »

June 25, 2009

$2 Trillion [cough](gasp){wheeze}

All of a sudden everyone in the media has shown an interest in fiscal restraint. They claim the American People are now concerned about spending, deficits, and fiscal discipline. Thus when it's estimated it may cost $2 Trillion over 10 years to pay for a public option for healthcare everyone freaks out.

No one freaked when we added $5 Trillion to the debt over the past 8 years under Bush Cheney. No one freaked as the cost of invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan topped $1 Trillion and may top $2 Trillion when all said and done. But now, oh my GOD, $2 Trillion over 10 years, why how on earth will we ever pay for that?

$2 Trillion over 10 years. That's $200 Billion a year. Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan would save us that much. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts surely would help. We spend over $1 Trillion a year on the military. Surely there is $200 Billion a year in the Pentagon we can save by simply axing some failed programs such as was the case with the Star Wars program. Hell, the Pentagon lost $2 Trillion and can't account for it.

It's just funny to me that when it comes to the military and wars no one cares about the cost. We've spent trillions of dollars over the years on the military, much of it wasted. To this day if America was to get into another war (a likely possibility) and we were told it would cost $2 Trillion no one would care. As long as it's a good war with bombs, tanks, and lots of death we are ok with that.

But $2 Trillion (over 10 years) to provide public healthcare? OMG, that's just like too much money. I'm all like fiscal conservative now and concerned about deficits and stuff. So like, it's real concerning about how they will find that money. What's that you say? Another $1 Trillion over ten years to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan? No problem!

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/2727

Comments

I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but people need to be consistent in how they apply it. If you're going to be upset about healthcare costs, you damn well better be upset about military costs. In reality, we should be more willing to pony up for something like healthcare (saves lives) than military spending for wars (costs lives).

Sadly, as you say, this is often not the case. Our priorities aren't what I would call "in order."

omg! health care for ALL?
you mean POOR people could get it?!?
ohs nos!!!! THAT'S SOCIALISM!

WE'RE NUMBER 79th AMONG THE WESTERN NATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO KEEPING OUR INFANTS ALIVE. AND THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FER ME!

Well being a little antagonizing, most are a Forrest Gump. Problem is that "Forrest" had a core concept. Any of you retards know what that may have been!?

Oh, forgot, "Stupid is as stupid does".

Most humans ARE a joke!

Post a comment


Please enter the security code you see here

honoeourwardeadgoldblack_180.png

US Deaths in Iraq

merchandise.png

National Debt Clock

thinkprogress2-180.png

huffingtonpost180-1.png

truthdig-180.png

mediamatters-180.png

rawstory180.png

truthout-180.png

mywaynews-180.png

yahoonews-180.png

googlenews-180.png

CNN_180.png

CommonDreams_180.png

MSNBC_180.png

Newsweek_180.png

NYT_180.png

TheNation_180.png

Time_180.png

washingtonpost_180.png

Alternet180.png

newsvoa180.png

KTLK_180.png


faux-news-180.png

OOIBC







Blogs_180.png

Listed on
BlogShares


Google