One of the things liberals criticized Bush most for was, obviously, the war in Iraq. Among their many illegitimate complaints was that it “cost too much”. So of course, when they find out that Obama plans to spend more on welfare in one year than Bush did on the entire Iraq war, then surely these guardians of fiscal conservatism will be even more outraged.

Right?

As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

… During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year–2010–more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

… By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.

Well, this is just great news. The war in Iraq may have been financially costly, but we liberated a nation, greatly weakened Al-Qaeda, strengthened our national security, possibly gained a second ally in the Middle East, and put a madman dictator to death. I think that any reasonable, sane person would agree that it was well worth the cost.

But increasing welfare spending? Are you kidding me? It’s just horrible to know that we’re going to be further encouraging people to let themselves sink into poverty, or, if they’re already there, to remain there. After all, why work hard and be responsible when the government can just take care of all of that for you? The people who actually are hard-working and responsible can afford to pay for those lazy, do-nothing, greedy slackers, right?

Of course, it’s politically advantageous for Obama to keep as many people on welfare as possible. The more people he’s got on welfare, see, the more people he will have to vote Democrat. Welfare recipients overwhelmingly vote Democrat come election time, and they also tend to be more ultra-liberal. This is understandable, because while they may be lazy bottom-feeders, they aren’t stupid. They understand that welfare reform means that they have to get off their lazy asses and actually work instead of just leech off the rest of us productive Americans. It’s a very convenient relationship for both parties, the Democrats and the welfare recipients. As long as the welfare recipients keep voting Democrat, then they know they’ll keep getting more money in welfare reform.

And what does it matter to Democrats or welfare recipients that welfare doesn’t help get anyone out of poverty? The answer is it doesn’t, yet it’s not keeping Obama from wasting a monumental amount of our money on welfare, does it?

Hat Tip: Right Wing News