It costs HOW much?!?!

[outside looking in]

How about this: "I heard on TV somewhere last night that the war would cost less than 3 trillion dollars."

Yeah, but you didn't. The numbers I heard were actually from a study.

I guess calling a ludicrous pile of voodoo a "study" makes it all legitimate then. In that case, I'll scribble down somewhere my estimate that the war would be free, put it on a website somewhere, and call it a "study".

But they're ludicrous, liberal, and socialist numbers because YOU say so.

Isn't that the very definition of an opinion? I think they're ludicrous because of the assumptions made. It's liberal and socialist because that's who wrote it! GAH!

Since you feel no need to back up the things you say I can't see how discussing it with you can be useful to anyone.

I explained that the reason I felt the numbers were blatantly hocus pocus was due to the assumptions made. I suggested you read those assumptions, but it seems you are unwilling to actually discuss the content of that study. Instead, you seem to be hung up on this "I heard numbers on the radio, coming from an 'actual study', and you didn't, so my numbers have validity while your opinion is unsupported." Why don't you want to discuss just why those numbers are ludicrous? Instead of insisting I find other 'studies' (which you seem to have done in any case), why not just read the damn report yourself and see if you agree... is it really that difficult of a concept?

Here's another study .

Maybe these numbers will help take this conversation somewhere.

That's in the range that I would have guessed.

Here's my problem with all such studies, regardless of their final estimate: Take this CBO report for example. Part of the figuring for the incremental cost estimate given was operations of naval ships above that already appropriated. What does that mean? The cost of extra fuel and supplies. My feeling is that they are taking the simplistic route of calculating the up-front cost to the government of this extra fuel, supplies, etc. But where does the extra fuel come from? For simplicity, look at a small surface ship running on diesel. The fuel comes from American oil companies. The government pays more (reflected in the incremental cost), but the oil company makes more, which is not reflected in these estimates. The money the oil company makes adds to the GDP, and eventually is redistributed to the rest of the economy.

Therefore, looking at these simplistic cost estimates, whether they are conservative or not, seems to be academic. The up front cost of the war is not telling anything like the whole story. It's more a redistribution of resources than a cost in the traditional sense. But what actual cost does this redistribution (away from the norm) actually carry (such as in the form of lowered productivity due to changes, unrecoverable losses in expidited manufacturing, etc.)? Very difficult question, and one which I'm pretty sure is consitently sidetracked (for practical reasons... no one could do an estimate otherwise).

On the other end of the spectrum, there are costs of lost lives that are equally impossible to tabulate. Complexity is everywhere when addressing such a problem. There is certainly a cost in rebuilding damaged infrastructure in Iraq... but what about the benefit of being able to educate Iraqis at the same time? Where is that figured into the calculations? It's not, nor are a million other issues.

That's why I found it pointless to offer "my estimate" in support of my opinion. My estimate is as meaningless as any other, including the CBO report. However, when you look at an estimate and notice that every single assumption made is taking one extreme side of every option then it becomes obvious that not only is the final figure meaningless, but was manipulated to come out with a predetermined conclusion.

PROPAGANDA.

Published by liberals.

Liberal propaganda.

Sorry if you have a problem with that, but such is reality.

 

[flavio]

It's liberal and socialist because that's who wrote it! GAH!

Just another "feeling" you have right? Of course there's no reason to back it up right?

However, when you look at an estimate and notice that every single assumption made is taking one extreme side of every option

Where did that happen?

Therefore, looking at these simplistic cost estimates, whether they are conservative or not, seems to be academic. The up front cost of the war is not telling anything like the whole story

Of course it's not telling the whole story and even if given an approximate monthly cost as in the CBO study, there's no telling how many months will be involved.

But, it's a start and you can begin to see what it might cost us. Shouldn't the government consider costs?

It's more a redistribution of resources than a cost in the traditional sense.

There is also actual money being spent by the government. It's not just getting moved from one section of government to another. It gets moved from the government into other peoples hands, sometimes other countries hands like the billions going to Turkey.

 

[outside looking in]

But, it's a start and you can begin to see what it might cost us. Shouldn't the government consider costs?

Yes, of course.... and benefits.

Liberals don't seem to have any problem with the tremendous costs of social programs. Why is this so different? You're spending money to accomplish something. The amount of money is far from the only thing that should be considered.

 

[madrin]

Yeah, but you didn't. The numbers I heard were actually from a study.

Yeah, Flavio, they WERE. That's the point...they were from a study that was misapplied because it(a 3 yr outlook) referred to the WORLD,...NOT the US, the corresponding study being the 10 year time period. YOU are incorrect either way, because if you cite the former you ignore the time component. If you cite the latter, you fall into the same trap that invalidated that december study in the first place, namely that it amortized on a 10 yr basis and applied it one year out...and further it ignored population expectations at the end of the 10 year period, again applying the extrapolation to the present...

In fact , the study to which you refer includes both the total cost, and the application of that incorrectly, and it's the same one I referred to on the NION site, which even THEY took down in 24 hours once they saw the mis-application....

If YOU can't see what's wrong with either case then there's no help for you. As it is, you've done nothing but cry like a bitch about being proven wrong on no fewer than 5 different points....

Anyway YOU repeated all this as fact without even so much as a cursory check of the figures , which would have immediately sent up red flags to anyone with the intellect = to or exceeding that of an amoeba...

...but again, you repeated it.

..and this was an important point. This is how things get "repeated" as fact..when they are, in reality, blatantly false. YOU help it along..you and your nitwit pals who parrot whatever you've been fed today by whomever chooses to indulge your geo-politcal fantasies...

the thing is, though..that far more people understand what you've done...and they discount it...which is a great deal because were it left to people like you , we'd still be stopping just short of the "edge of the world".

Now, I know you'll weep and moan and cry "Fascist KKK right wing gun nut" and all your other spoon fed Berkleyesque bullshit......and being that I'm such a sport, I'll even let you have the last word on this.

I know you'll take it , too....people like you need that to feel validated, because the rest of the world sees them for what they really are....

MADrin

 

[flavio]

madrin - the only one being proved wrong is you time and again.... and on basic word use at that. I simply said I heard something on the radio, which I did. You seem to keep making claims that you don't back up time and again. It's really getting old.

If you you have ability to bring even basic credibility to your statements then what is the point of your continued dicussion? If you have nothing, it's making it increasingly obvious that you have fabricated your entire stance are only capable of random non-sensical insults poorly disguised as debate.

Now, I know you'll weep and moan and cry "Fascist KKK right wing gun nut" and all

Of course you miss the blatant of references to your initial crying about "liberal socialist" crap that YOU started, obviously spoonfed directly from Limbaugh. I suppose that maybe you have difficulty picking up on sarcasm though.

 

[flavio]

Liberals don't seem to have any problem with the tremendous costs of social programs. Why is this so different? You're spending money to accomplish something.

So now you're trying to make a case for more spending on social programs?

 

[Squiggy]

Liberals don't seem to have any problem with the tremendous costs of social programs. Why is this so different? You're spending money to accomplish something. The amount of money is far from the only thing that should be considered.

Sorry oli, but this bullshit frosts my balls. After the Reagen/Bush and Bush/Quale administrations damn near destroyed America financially, it was the "liberals" that managed to give us the first balanced budget and best economy in 'FOREVER". Take that bullshit about 'liberal spending" and shove it up your ass. I prefer those who spend more for the welfare of the general public than those who take care of big business and the wealthy. Our new 'tax cuts" are a fucking joke. And spending has been obscene...

 

[Gonz]

The Reagan/Bush administration took away the utterly ridiculous 70% tax rate. That made it possible to have the boom in the 90's. Was Reagan a great Prez? I don't think so but this was a great move. Clinton was at the right place at the right time, even with the largest tax increase in history.

I'm still waiting for a poor person to offer me a job with a paycheck.

 

[Squiggy]

 

[outside looking in]

Sorry oli, but this bullshit frosts my balls. After the Reagen/Bush and Bush/Quale administrations damn near destroyed America financially, it was the "liberals" that managed to give us the first balanced budget and best economy in 'FOREVER". Take that bullshit about 'liberal spending" and shove it up your ass. I prefer those who spend more for the welfare of the general public than those who take care of big business and the wealthy. Our new 'tax cuts" are a fucking joke. And spending has been obscene...

I don't know what sent you into that frothing unrelated tirade, but I'm guessing it's because you (and Flavio) misunderstood my post?

Let me break it down and make it very clear to avoid any further misunderstanding, and neeless insults...


"Liberals don't seem to have any problem with the tremendous costs of social programs."
Pretty hard to misunderstand there. In general, this is true. They don't have a problem because they feel that the benefits are worth the costs. I don't think all social programs are evil, and I don't know why you felt the need to read any such crap into my statement.

"Why is this so different?"
Meaning - why is war viewed so radically different by liberals? Both social programs and war have an associated cost, and they both have associated benefits. Why are only the benefits typically considered in the former but only the costs considered in the latter? Isn't this a double standard?

"You're spending money to accomplish something."
This was not an answer to the preceeding question, but a statement of why I don't seem them as so fundamentally different. In both cases, you spend money to accomplish some goal, presumably because the benefits outweigh the costs. I personally think buying someone's freedom is a noble expenditure, but that's just my opinion.


So, I'm left a bit puzzled about your vicious rant. I was instructed to shove something up my ass, so here I am standing here with my pants down, but for the life of me I can't figure out what your point was, or how it was related to what I stated. People passing me by are giving me strange looks... and I'm not sure if it's because of my exposed balls or the strange look on my face.

But to address your completely off-topic rant on liberals curing all the ailments of our economy, and socialist philosophy being the nirvana of economics, well... that's an entirely different discussion, and one which I don't particularly feel like getting into anytime soon.

 

[Squiggy]

I grow a little tired of the Right Wing painting the Left Wing as "Big Spenders" when, in fact, the right has been much more willing to spend. If you look at real dollars, those tax cuts and costs of war are all aimed at increasing the wealth of the top 5%. Then you try to tell us we are going to war to bestow our "humaity" on the poor Iraqis. You seem to think (collectivly) that its OK for us to supply everyone else with welfare programs but fuck the president who actually looks out for Americans. The fact is, there are people getting rich in all this and the excuses are pathetic.

 

[outside looking in]

I'm sorry, did you miss my post just above and continue your confusing unrelated tirade anyway?

Did I miss myself saying somewhere that liberals are the only ones who spend money? Huh? What the hell are you smoking, how much does it cost, and where can I get some?

 

[Squiggy]

Well oli, "The tremendous costs of social programs" are fucking miniscule compared to the tax cut for the wealthy, or corporate welfare, or war. But you never speak of them in terms of "tremendous costs". Rather, you attack any statement that might suggest it....

 

[Gonz]

If you look at real dollars, those tax cuts

Those tax cuts have ZERO cost. Less money being sent to Washington is not a cost. In actuality, more money gets sent to DC, since more people have jobs. That is how the Reagan tax cut boosted the economy. 10 years later, we were basking in the highlife. 10 years after the largest tax increase in history, our economy is slow. Hmmm, pattern?

 

[flavio]

"You're spending money to accomplish something."
This was not an answer to the preceeding question, but a statement of why I don't seem them as so fundamentally different. In both cases, you spend money to accomplish some goal, presumably because the benefits outweigh the costs. I personally think buying someone's freedom is a noble expenditure, but that's just my opinion.

And the actual cost is important. If say $10,000 was enough to take care of the prescriptions for the year Gonz mentioned or was all the funding Bush's hydrogen fuel research needed then I don't think you would find any opposition. If you estimate the cost at several hundred billion though many would object.

In the same way it's important to get some sort of handle on what this business with Iraq might cost us. The amount makes a difference.

 

[flavio]

If you look at real dollars, those tax cuts

Those tax cuts have ZERO cost. Less money being sent to Washington is not a cost. In actuality, more money gets sent to DC, since more people have jobs. That is how the Reagan tax cut boosted the economy. 10 years later, we were basking in the highlife. 10 years after the largest tax increase in history, our economy is slow. Hmmm, pattern?

It's funny how you attribute the economy to someone who was in office 10 years earlier. Seems like quite a stretch but I don't think anyone will ever agree on it.

Who is responsible for good or bad economies is just a matter of convenience depending on which side of the issue you're on.

 

[Squiggy]

This is so much bullshit.... First of all, Reagen didn't create all those working people you refer to. What he did was to make half of those collecting benefits INELIGIBLE, thus leaving them without income at all in a depressed economy. What that did was create a new class of American which we affectionately refer to as HOMELESS. And still his numbers were disasterous. He was a fucking idiot.
The ONLY thing that creates a strong economy is the American confidence in their spending. The stock market reacts instantly to world events.. NOT 10 years later.

 

[Squiggy]

If you look at real dollars, those tax cuts

Those tax cuts have ZERO cost. Less money being sent to Washington is not a cost. In actuality, more money gets sent to DC, since more people have jobs. That is how the Reagan tax cut boosted the economy. 10 years later, we were basking in the highlife. 10 years after the largest tax increase in history, our economy is slow. Hmmm, pattern?

You should try using the whole statement if you're going to quote it, Gonz. I said they were aimed at increasing the wealth of the top 5%.

And they do cost us $$$. Big $$$ in the interest that we pay on the debt. The whole idea of balancing the budget was to eliminate that cost and give us a real chance at stability.

 

[unclehobart]

This sad puppy wants you to stop fighting.

 

[Squiggy]

OK. I'd do anything to make puppies happy...