Reply #4: Apples And Oranges

[KharmaTrain]

The only thing both have in common are a big waste of our tax money. However, we have no clue on the costs of either. Iraq and Afghanistan have been "off the books" and calculating their real costs include the billions spent domestically to defense contractors that are hidden in many different bills. Whatever figure we hear is guestimate at what the yearly expenses are...and, yes, a staggering waste of money that could have been put to far greater use in this country. Money and opportunities wasted...and that's what's frustrating. When the boooosh regime took power, we had a rare chance to re-invest in America...instead these crooks looted the treasury and didn't stop until January 20th. We're still finding their landmines all over the place.

Bank bailouts are long-term expenditures...or at least in concept. For all the billions spent there, the hopes are that the money will return when the economy recovers. More jobs mean more money people are earning and spending...increasing tax revenues. In time, when the real estate markets recover, the toxic assets will start to gain some value as well...and while I doubt we'll see all the money recouped, there will be some.

With war, all the money that goes out never comes back (unless you're an oil exec or defense contractor)...the hopes are these bailouts will lead to restoring an economy that will eventually replenish the money we're expneding now and create a more stable economy. That's in theory...but reality is always another story. President Obama's ultimate legacy here will be to set the groundwork for that recovery and base it on a rejuvenated middle class.