Obama’s Cost Of War, No Problem

President Obama finally confirmed what I said four yeas ago about all his complaining about the cost of two wars in his acceptance speech Thursday night. The sleight-of-hand with borrowed money.

President Obama’s acceptance speech 9/6/2012 . . .

I will use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways.

Because after two wars that have cost us thousands
of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some
nation- building right here at home.

Here’s where he is wrong. The money spent on the war is borrowed. So he wants to borrow more money, another trillion dollars, to pay down the debt (which is now over 16 trillion dollars) and to build roads and bridges. (Like he told us he was going to do with the last ‘stimulus’ spending bill, and didn’t. Remember the ‘shovel ready’ joke?) In the Progressive/Liberal mind, spending your way to prosperity and borrowing your way out of debt makes sense.  My calculator tells me the debt will grow by another trillion dollars. It’s time to stop opening new credit cards to pay off old ones, while committing generational theft.

Lunch Counter 9/9/2008, speaking to the cost of war issue . . .

True, the cost of the war is great. Unfortunately, the cost of losing it is greater. Early on in their [Obama and Democrats] chorus of the immense cost of the war, I suspected that they were basically looking at the ‘cost’ of the war as opportunities lost for all sorts of entitlement and other socialistic programs that build (read ‘buy’) voter constituencies.

What is the answer to the enormous cost of the war? When it ends, the cost also ends. Who knows, we might need it again some day.

This from a guy who said it will bankrupt our country, that we can’t afford these wars. How does his arithmetic tell him that we can afford it now providing we spend it? That’s a rhetorical question. It’s Liberal math.