PDA

View Full Version : How long do you believe that this war is economically sustainable?


Taco John
08-24-2007, 03:28 AM
An interesting question for those who might be willing to look forward and speculate....

Simplex3
08-24-2007, 05:17 AM
You have to define sustainable. You mean "without any effect on our lifestyle"? If so, then we're probably already past that. If you mean "without having to cut back on giving the troops the absolute best of everything", then we may be closing in on it. If you mean "until we can't afford to send bullets" then it's pretty much infinite.

Though technically we're in deficit spending every year, so we can't afford anything that we're doing.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 06:42 AM
Longer than medicare.

What are we at now, somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0% of GDP?

Amnorix
08-24-2007, 08:56 AM
Just in terms of economics it's pretty much indefinite.

Mi_chief_fan
08-24-2007, 09:00 AM
I think the better question is, "How long before they run out of volunteers and they start drafting people again." Luckily, i've completed my eight year commitment.

HonestChieffan
08-24-2007, 09:02 AM
As long as profits are made, wars can go on.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 09:09 AM
Longer than medicare.

What are we at now, somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0% of GDP?
GDP is a flawed statistic. If its so cheap foot the bill now.
It's being financed by the printing press.

Cochise
08-24-2007, 09:22 AM
I read that in 2005 (i think) the war cost 5% of the total federal budget.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 09:24 AM
GDP is a flawed statistic. If its so cheap foot the bill now.
It's being financed by the printing press.

Federal revenues are over 18% of GDP. More than enough to pay for the war in Iraq if we eliminate other, less important spending.

memyselfI
08-24-2007, 09:47 AM
I voted the first option because as long we have idiots willing to excuse this debacle then they will find creative ways to bankrupt the country to help pay for the foolishness.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 09:49 AM
War is just another govt program added to the mix that we don't need.
It's inflationary and inflation is higher than is being let on.
GDP is a flawed statistic period to a Misean.

Mr. Laz
08-24-2007, 09:52 AM
Longer than medicare.

What are we at now, somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0% of GDP?
if the war in Iraq would allow the right to kill all the social programs in American they will renew their support with great enthusiasm.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 10:00 AM
GDP is a flawed statistic period to a Misean.

I suspect that almost any economist would say it's a flawed statistic. So what?

Markets are flawed too, but in another thread you countered tiptap's statement to that effect by correctly pointing out that the alternative (central planning) is even more flawed. Even if GDP is a flawed statistic, it is still better than a complete lack of perspective about the cost of this war (although I can understand why the anti's would want to keep everyone in the dark and pretend that the costs are crushingly ginormous.)

patteeu
08-24-2007, 10:01 AM
if the war in Iraq would allow the right to kill all the social programs in American they will renew their support with great enthusiasm.

Make war, not (government) cheese! ;)

Cochise
08-24-2007, 10:05 AM
Even if GDP is a flawed statistic, it is still better than a complete lack of perspective about the cost of this war (although I can understand why the anti's would want to keep everyone in the dark and pretend that the costs are crushingly ginormous.)

Spending as a % of federal expenditures seems like a good measure.

But, you are correct, the standard battle plan seems to be that if measures and data refute the predetermined position... call the measures invalid, say that the truth can't really be measured, and you're still right, thus rendering it impossible to empirically examine.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 10:13 AM
I suspect that almost any economist would say it's a flawed statistic. So what?

Markets are flawed too, but in another thread you countered tiptap's statement to that effect by correctly pointing out that the alternative (central planning) is even more flawed. Even if GDP is a flawed statistic, it is still better than a complete lack of perspective about the cost of this war (although I can understand why the anti's would want to keep everyone in the dark and pretend that the costs are crushingly ginormous.)

I was stating in general that it was a flawed stat, which also includes war.
But my other point is the borrowing and printing of money to sustain it.
You may argue it's all the entitlements but why add to mix, even just a little bit especially when it was unecessary.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 10:54 AM
...especially when it was unecessary.

This is the crux of our rift on this subject. I could have been persuaded that it was unnecessary prior to our commitment, but now that we're there, you can't convince me that it's not important enough to be worth the relatively low cost.

Discussion about whether we withdraw or press on shouldn't be about how we got into the war or (with the benefit of hindsight) whether getting into the war was the right thing to do. It should be about recognizing that we've made a commitment, our credibility is on the line, those who have joined us in the belief that we would do as we say are on the line, and our enemy's morale and motivation is on the line. The stakes are different now and any decision to stay or go should be made on the basis of the new stakes. I know that the new stakes won't impress you enough to change your mind, but you and the other anti's continue to revert back to obsolete arguments that minimize my confidence that you're even considering the right questions.

If it's bad that fighting in Iraq is helping to stimulate the jihadists, then isn't it even worse that cutting and running from the fight (in Iraq) just as OBL said we would will provide an even bigger stimulus? I think so.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:04 AM
This is the crux of our rift on this subject. I could have been persuaded that it was unnecessary prior to our commitment, but now that we're there, you can't convince me that it's not important enough to be worth the relatively low cost.

Discussion about whether we withdraw or press on shouldn't be about how we got into the war or (with the benefit of hindsight) whether getting into the war was the right thing to do. It should be about recognizing that we've made a commitment, our credibility is on the line, those who have joined us in the belief that we would do as we say are on the line, and our enemy's morale and motivation is on the line. The stakes are different now and any decision to stay or go should be made on the basis of the new stakes. I know that the new stakes won't impress you enough to change your mind, but you and the other anti's continue to revert back to obsolete arguments that minimize my confidence that you're even considering the right questions.

If it's bad that fighting in Iraq is helping to stimulate the jihadists, then isn't it even worse that cutting and running from the fight (in Iraq) just as OBL said we would will provide an even bigger stimulus? I think so.


Although I was opposed from the start on intuition, as it didn't make sense I did come to be on the fence about it from seeing it debated back in 2003. Once, it was a given, I accepted it and did hope for the best. I hoped it would be as simple as promoted. There was even a poster on that a Buc BB who was a total NeoCon and former military intel who was pushing how easy and fast it would be.* So I at least hoped for that. I don't want to see our troops die if it's seems illogical. Even after, I was unwilling to pull out until about late 2005 and only because I became convinced our occupation was fueling the insurgency. That's my stand today still.

*Guess what? In his profile he listed the AEI as his favorite website which had been there before the discussions. It was there all along, and I saw it but I didn't know who they were then. He was only 31 but he was a new generation of NCs. Boy he as a nasty poster too. Seems to go hand in hand with their general belligerence and aggressiveness.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:08 AM
Ya' know pat, the economy was good in the 60's as I understand and Vietnam was going in then. But my economic reading says it caught up with us by the 1970's and the stagflation had something to do with Vietnam. I don't remember all the details but it made sense. Sure there was also an energy crisis but that too was related to the Yom Kippur war and our taking Israel's side. Now we have an energy crisis....will the inflation keep growing is my fear economically if we don't either resolve Iraq or get out. That's the worst outcome I see from this economically. To heck with the GDP!

Cochise
08-24-2007, 11:09 AM
Discussion about whether we withdraw or press on shouldn't be about how we got into the war or (with the benefit of hindsight) whether getting into the war was the right thing to do. It should be about recognizing that we've made a commitment, our credibility is on the line, those who have joined us in the belief that we would do as we say are on the line, and our enemy's morale and motivation is on the line. The stakes are different now and any decision to stay or go should be made on the basis of the new stakes.

Brilliant

Cochise
08-24-2007, 11:11 AM
Ya' know pat, the economy was good in the 60's as I understand and Vietnam was going in then. But my economic reading says it caught up with us by the 1970's and the stagflation had something to do with Vietnam. I don't remember all the details but it made sense. Sure there was also an energy crisis but that too was related to the Yom Kippur war and our taking Israel's side. Now we have an energy crisis....will the inflation keep growing is my fear economically if we don't either resolve Iraq or get out. That's the worst outcome I see from this economically. To heck with the GDP!

There it is - all our energy troubles dating back 30 years are the fault of the neocon boogeyman too.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:11 AM
Brilliant
Oh really? We have made a committment? No declare means no real committment by the people. Sorry this is Bush's war and his supporters.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:14 AM
There it is - all our energy troubles dating back 30 years are the fault of the neocon boogeyman too.
Who said anything about any NeoCons for then.
I guess the counterpart to my boogeyman is the historical Christian rancour toward Muslims leading them to believe they're the sole cause or boogeyman of our problems in the ME because they've always been violent. LMAO!

Cochise
08-24-2007, 11:23 AM
Who said anything about any NeoCons for then.
I guess the counterpart to my boogeyman is the historical Christian rancour toward Muslims leading them to believe they're the sole cause or boogeyman of our problems in the ME because they've always been violent. LMAO!

Yep, if we had hid within our borders and locked the doors, refused to put a toe into any sort of situation around the globe, we'd all be in flying electric cars. It was because of neocons who hadn't been named neocons yet.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:31 AM
Who said that?
You have quite a penchant for misreading or twisting words around don't you Cochise?

Cochise
08-24-2007, 11:43 AM
One funny part of your stagflation argument was that stagflation by definition requires inflation combined with no economic growth and generally high or at least rising unemployment.

But our economy has grown for, what, 50 straight months? And unemployment is, for all intents and purposes, zero, at the lowest or one of the lowest points in history. And as for inflation, the CPI is down year over year from last year, and we're sitting below the median in inflation for the period dating back to 1990. It was above 6% in the last recession, and right now it's around 3, which is down from when it was close to 5% something like two years ago.

So it's not like the stagflation argument simply doesn't wash, it makes us believe that you are simply committed to a conclusion and try to cobble together arguments to support it that congeal with your view of what causes what.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 11:56 AM
I made no conclusion about stagflation. I'm making a case that inflation is on the rise which is my fear, as well as others. Nice that food and gas are no longer included on inflation stats. That's where the biggest rise is...now rents, doctors and other items are starting to follow. People are worried, just talk to some.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 12:15 PM
Now let me see what war/economic history I can draw on from going to my regular economic site...The Mises Institute:

Seems that even the American War of Independence relied on inflationary war financing as well as every war since, with one exception: The Mexican War.

Now their blog, has a discussion to a link of the Washington Post claiming the Iraq war has already cost us, adjusting for inflation more than WWI. Now here's one excellent point about why GDP is a flawed statistic:This military spending pumps up particular industries and has an impact on the GDP.
Now this is in 2004 that military spending is up 15 percent over last year when the war was supposedly over. Military Keynesianism.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GFDEBTN_Max.png

http://www.mises.org/story/1273
http://blog.mises.org//blog/archives/002000.asp

Cochise
08-24-2007, 12:18 PM
Nice that food and gas are no longer included on inflation stats. That's where the biggest rise is...now rents, doctors and other items are starting to follow. People are worried, just talk to some.

See, there it is again. When we start to get specific - in this case, whether the economy was in peril due to the cost of the war vis-a-vis 'stagflation' - you obfuscate on commonly accepted yardsticks, and tell me to "just talk to some people".

patteeu
08-24-2007, 12:20 PM
Now let me see what war/economic history I can draw on from going to my regular economic site...The Mises Institute:

Seems that even the American War of Independence relied on inflationary war financing as well as every war since, with one exception: The Mexican War.

Now their blog, has a discussion to a link of the Washington Post claiming the Iraq war has already cost us, adjusting for inflation more than WWI. Now here's one excellent point about why GDP is a flawed statistic:This military spending pumps up particular industries and has an impact on the GDP.
Now this is in 2004 that military spending is up 15 percent over last year when the war was supposedly over. Military Keynesianism.

I'd bet that spending on the Iraq war as a fraction of GDP (even after you take out defense and other war-related industry to eliminate your concern) is still lower than that of WWI.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 12:24 PM
See, there it is again. When we start to get specific - in this case, whether the economy was in peril due to the cost of the war vis-a-vis 'stagflation' - you obfuscate on commonly accepted yardsticks, and tell me to "just talk to some people".
Do you have a reading disorder? I said nothing about the economy being in peril. You extraoplated that. Nor did I imply it. I was talking about inflation and had a concern if it could turn into stagflation. As for talking to people, what's being experienced on a personal level is part of the overall picture. People are feeling the pinch and are complaining. It's a hidden tax. I could see the rise in food back in 2003/4 even.

Cochise
08-24-2007, 12:33 PM
Do you have a reading disorder? I said nothing about the economy being in peril. You extraoplated that. Nor did I imply it. I was talking about inflation and had a concern if it could turn into stagflation. As for talking to people, what's being experienced on a personal level is part of the overall picture. People are feeling the pinch and are complaining. It's a hidden tax. I could see the rise in food back in 2003/4 even.

You very clearly said the economy was good in the 60s, then vietnam, then we took sides with israel, then stagflation, then bad economy. Obviously, the implication is that those damn neocons are going to lead us into an economic crisis. I don't have a reading disorder, I just experience disorder when I try to apply logic to that argument.

As for your statement that you experienced inflation in 2003 or 2004, regardless of any local or regional factors that may have been involved or what specific items and purchasing patterns are at work - I'm not really sure of what use that is to us because you've declared any measure of inflation invalid other than stopping random people on the street and asking them if they are worried. It might be explained using inflation expressed as a percentage, or using CPI, but I'm sure they are both invalid for one reason or another if they contradict the narrative that neocon interventionism around the world is leading us down the Vietnam path toward the Carter days all over again.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 01:03 PM
You very clearly said the economy was good in the 60s, then vietnam, then we took sides with israel, then stagflation, then bad economy. Obviously, the implication is that those damn neocons are going to lead us into an economic crisis. I don't have a reading disorder, I just experience disorder when I try to apply logic to that argument.
No you're reading into them. I said economy was good in the 60's based on what I read... but, using different words, that the inflation (because of borrowing and the printing presses) to finance it caught up later. I mentioned the energy crisis because that was a factor in that economy too which increases costs of goods. Because we have one now which is also a factor.

As for your statement that you experienced inflation in 2003 or 2004, regardless of any local or regional factors that may have been involved or what specific items and purchasing patterns are at work - I'm not really sure of what use that is to us because you've declared any measure of inflation invalid other than stopping random people on the street and asking them if they are worried.
Now see, this is what I'm talking about. That's putting words in my mouth when it's nothing more than your opinion of what I said because I included direct, personal observation. Changing words to suit some anatagonism particularly since you keep bringing on neocons in a mocking tone of sarcasm.

It might be explained using inflation expressed as a percentage, or using CPI, but I'm sure they are both invalid for one reason or another if they contradict the narrative that neocon interventionism around the world is leading us down the Vietnam path toward the Carter days all over again.
Same could be said for your pov. This has nothing to do with neocons either, it has to do with how most wars have been financed and our monetary system. It's no stretch of logic to infer from past wars or instances that similar things may follow. That's critical thinking.

Don't forget I also claim to be a Misean which means I don't normally accept what govt stats always claim. The CPI gets used by politicians and their mainstream economists dishonestly. Not to mention economists connected to a cause.

From Mises in 2001 on the subject:
The first thing to keep in mind is that the CPI is not an economic variable. It is a statistic that at best gives an inaccurate picture of an economic phenomenon: inflation. To calculate the monthly CPI, the USDepartment of Labor takes a weighted average of prices of various things that consumers purchase, and then its statisticians try to figure out the various proportions of different items in a "mythical" household budget. For example, the statisticians may hold that housing costs are 30 percent of household expenditures, food costs 20 percent, gasoline another 15 percent, and so on.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=368

Austrian school is all about how things work at the individual level of action as opposed to aggregates, which the govt uses...or tries to concoct.

Cochise
08-24-2007, 01:17 PM
This is the frustrating cycle once again. You'll make a statement, then someone provides information that doesn't fit with it, so you attack their information as invalid conventional wisdom. You had an explanation for inflation at the ready; now you've Googled up one for the CPI.

I don't know your profession, maybe you're an eminent economist or something, but every country in the world tracks and trusts the consumer price index. Some countries have fiscal policy pegged to it. In others it's merely a statistic as important as perhaps any other.

My question is, since you seem to place no trust at all in GDP, inflation statistics, the consumer price index, and given those probably no weight on productivity, employment situation, trade costs, earnings, purchasing power, etc. since most of those are interactive to one degree or another... and extending inflation, if you don't trust inflation then you have no way to adjust historical numbers for inflation, so there's no basis to say that the economy today is better than it was in the 60s or at any other point in the nation's existence overall or in any particular ways. So really, we've got no clue where we are or what direction we might be facing. We're floating at some remote location in space wearing a blindfold.

So what is meaningful about any discussion of economics at all if there are no valid measurements? I mean, the vision is one of you piloting an airplane, believing the whole dizzying array of gauges and instruments to be displaying random data that is of no use, and that like asking people how they feel about the situation, you ought to just fly the plane by feeling.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 01:48 PM
I didn't say there were no "valid" measurements.
I'm not saying we've got stagflagation.

The most reliable, as regards price increases not related to demand, is personal oberservation. Can you not see that your dollar is buying you less? Or do you have to look at a CPI to tell you? Well, I'll tell you I don't need to.

Tuition went up where I teach. It resulted in an enrollment drop and less classes for the adjuncts to teach. Office rent went up, twice, so chiro visits go up. I buy bottle volvic water, it was $1.60 just a few years ago.It's $2 now. I can see it most especially in food.

As for what other countries do...we'll that is the status quo and that is based on Keynes. It's really not the govt's business to even be involved in all that from my political pov. They do that to manage economies.

Cochise
08-24-2007, 02:32 PM
The most reliable, as regards price increases not related to demand, is personal oberservation.

If it weighs the same as a duck... it's made of wood... and therefore a witch! LMAO

Sorry. This has become tiresome. I'll hand it off to someone else.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2007, 02:37 PM
If it weighs the same as a duck... it's made of wood... and therefore a witch! LMAO

Sorry. This has become tiresome. I'll hand it off to someone else.
I agree with the tiresome part, but I'd say for me it was several posts back.

Next time you need a read on how much things are costing or how well you're doing economically who you gonna call? The govt or check the cpi. ROFL *cue music of Ghost Busters* here.

Taco John
08-24-2007, 02:39 PM
Discussion about whether we withdraw or press on shouldn't be about how we got into the war or (with the benefit of hindsight) whether getting into the war was the right thing to do. It should be about recognizing that we've made a commitment, our credibility is on the line


Made a commitment? Hell no we haven't made a commitment. If we made a commitment, doesn't it stand to reason that we would be committed to it? When we pull out, you're going to blame the left, but the people you should blame are the ones who didn't make a commitment (ie. Declaration of war), and went to war anyway. I personally blame congress. They didn't do their jobs.


If it's bad that fighting in Iraq is helping to stimulate the jihadists, then isn't it even worse that cutting and running from the fight (in Iraq) just as OBL said we would will provide an even bigger stimulus? I think so.

I don't personally care what OBL says. And apparently neither does Bush, because he says he's stopped looking for him. Remember when he made a commitment to capturing him dead or alive, and then abandoned that commitment?

BIG_DADDY
08-24-2007, 02:44 PM
We should pick up all those illegal taco eating fools that want citizenship here and send them over there to earn it.

jiveturkey
08-24-2007, 02:54 PM
We should pick up all those illegal taco eating fools that want citizenship here and send them over there to earn it.We were doing the same thing with Filipinos when I was in the Navy. They were everywhere.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 03:14 PM
Made a commitment? Hell no we haven't made a commitment. If we made a commitment, doesn't it stand to reason that we would be committed to it? When we pull out, you're going to blame the left, but the people you should blame are the ones who didn't make a commitment (ie. Declaration of war), and went to war anyway. I personally blame congress. They didn't do their jobs.

The commitment was made when we declared war.

I don't personally care what OBL says. And apparently neither does Bush, because he says he's stopped looking for him. Remember when he made a commitment to capturing him dead or alive, and then abandoned that commitment?

We are still committed to capturing or killing OBL, it's just not the only consideration in the broader war.

Taco John
08-24-2007, 04:04 PM
The commitment was made when we declared war.


ROFL Sarcasm noted.

I sure wish we'd have declared war. It's a real source of frustration to me that we didn't.



We are still committed to capturing or killing OBL, it's just not the only consideration in the broader war.


No we're not. Come on. If this nation was committed to capturing or killing OBL, he'd have been captured or killed by now.

penchief
08-24-2007, 07:13 PM
You have to define sustainable. You mean "without any effect on our lifestyle"? If so, then we're probably already past that. If you mean "without having to cut back on giving the troops the absolute best of everything", then we may be closing in on it. If you mean "until we can't afford to send bullets" then it's pretty much infinite.

Though technically we're in deficit spending every year, so we can't afford anything that we're doing.

If we continue the trend of isolating ourselves we will need a manufacturing base at some point. Considering that America's eco-political elite have eroded that base for unpatriotic reasons, and considering that everything that the neocon ideolgoy has touched has turned to shit (see Iraq, Katrina, Walter Reed, etc.), my guess is that we could easily run out of bullets before the "job is done."

mlyonsd
08-24-2007, 07:20 PM
I know the question was posed with dollars in mind but we'll run out of grunts long before we run out of money.

penchief
08-24-2007, 07:26 PM
I know the question was posed with dollars in mind but we'll run out of grunts long before we run out of money.

I think your point overrides mine. There's a real disconnect between this president's ideological stubbornness and the capability of our military. It was not meant as an imperialistic force. Our military was meant as a means of national defense.

mlyonsd
08-24-2007, 07:38 PM
I think your point overrides mine. There's a real disconnect between this president's ideological stubbornness and the capability of our military. It was not meant as an imperialistic force. Our military was meant as a means of national defense.

I know you're going to think me an idiot but I truly believe the Iraq mission at the time was the right thing to do for national defense. You won't change my mind on that either. We'll only really know the answer to that question in about 10-20 years.

That being said the Bush administration used the sentiment at the time to over simplify to the American people what taking care of Saddam would cost. Maybe they didn't understand it, maybe they thought the threat large enough to throw the dice, maybe they didn't care.

But one important distinction about Bush is his ideological stubborness evolves into sticking with what he believes. You can mock him all you want but the one thing nobody ever talks about is he truly believes in the course he has set. That goes back to the original premise of invading Iraq, and he has not been proven wrong by any means.

Your point is well taken, our military was meant to be a national defense. But how to keep that threat off of our soil is the $64K question isnt' it?

I have no answers. I'm just waiting for it to be evident what the correct course is with Iraq. Unfortunately nobody is making that clear to me right now.

Logical
08-24-2007, 08:13 PM
We are seeing the early results already in the housing market and the instability of the stock market. A recession is coming and it may be a doozy.

penchief
08-24-2007, 08:25 PM
I know you're going to think me an idiot but I truly believe the Iraq mission at the time was the right thing to do for national defense. You won't change my mind on that either. We'll only really know the answer to that question in about 10-20 years.

Hardly. I think you're one of the more reasonable posters who represents an opinion different than mine. I do want to change your mind but I also realize that is impossible. Only you can change your mind. That said, I think you have bought into the "history will judge" mantra from those who have so obviously screwed the pooch in the present. History will judge the decisions that this administration has made as decisions driven by ideology and political advantage, IMO.

Just because Bush brandishes the Churchill/Truman comparisons doesn't mean he's lived up to them. That's typical of the cynical neocon psyche job. Kinda like the 'compassionate conservative' thing.

That being said the Bush administration used the sentiment at the time to over simplify to the American people what taking care of Saddam would cost. Maybe they didn't understand it, maybe they thought the threat large enough to throw the dice, maybe they didn't care.

They wanted to attack Iraq before 9/11. How that fact escapes so many people is amazing, IMO. They lied to the American people about what attacking Iraq was really about and they mislead them about what it would cost. I think they knew it could lead to this but I think they didn't care because they knew that even if it ended up like this we would have no choice but to stay.

Like Colin Powell warned the president; "If we break it, we bought it." I think they knew that going in. I think they wanted ownership for better or for worse.

But one important distinction about Bush is his ideological stubborness evolves into sticking with what he believes. You can mock him all you want but the one thing nobody ever talks about is he truly believes in the course he has set. That goes back to the original premise of invading Iraq, and he has not been proven wrong by any means.

I also believe he sticks to his guns.....whether he is correct or not. I think he may have an inkling when something isn't working but he isn't willing to admit it to himself, let alone the world.

And he has been proven wrong on his premise for invading Iraq. All of the justifications they provided have been effectively debunked. What he is left defending is the ideology. And that is something that cannot be defended soley with rhetoric and slogans and without evidence.

Your point is well taken, our military was meant to be a national defense. But how to keep that threat off of our soil is the $64K question isnt' it?

Investing in border security and port security. That is the most obvious thing. The irony is that this administration has grossly neglected those areas in favor of invading and occupying a country that didn't attack us (in addition to stripping the American people of their freedoms) while doing little to protect the "homeland" where it is most vulnerable.

The fact that we have not been hit in another 9/11 style attack means nothing in it's current context. To me, it only reinforces the idea that the threat is not as great as we are led to believe. I think so because we all know that if al-Qaeda wanted to blow up a mall anywhere in America tomorrow, they could.

I have no answers. I'm just waiting for it to be evident what the correct course is with Iraq. Unfortunately nobody is making that clear to me right now.

The right course is not to occupy another country or destroy ancient cultures for false reasons or economic gain.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 08:43 PM
We are seeing the early results already in the housing market and the instability of the stock market. A recession is coming and it may be a doozy.

We should have known that the surge would cause lenders to market ever riskier products to people who seemed ever more willing to take foolish risks.

go bowe
08-24-2007, 08:46 PM
I know you're going to think me an idiot but I truly believe the Iraq mission at the time was the right thing to do for national defense. You won't change my mind on that either. We'll only really know the answer to that question in about 10-20 years.

That being said the Bush administration used the sentiment at the time to over simplify to the American people what taking care of Saddam would cost. Maybe they didn't understand it, maybe they thought the threat large enough to throw the dice, maybe they didn't care.

But one important distinction about Bush is his ideological stubborness evolves into sticking with what he believes. You can mock him all you want but the one thing nobody ever talks about is he truly believes in the course he has set. That goes back to the original premise of invading Iraq, and he has not been proven wrong by any means.

Your point is well taken, our military was meant to be a national defense. But how to keep that threat off of our soil is the $64K question isnt' it?

I have no answers. I'm just waiting for it to be evident what the correct course is with Iraq. Unfortunately nobody is making that clear to me right now.imo, we should recall the pre-war iraqi amy and regorganize it so that almost all units would be mixed (shia, sunni and curd)...

then blend those units with elements of the new army (post-war)...

with a little luck, you end up with a national army that will fight for their country (rather than for their sectarian leaders)...

or not...

wazu
08-24-2007, 10:37 PM
I sure wish we'd have declared war. It's a real source of frustration to me that we didn't.

There you go again with the Constitution. Don't you realize how anachronistic that stupid old document is?

Logical
08-24-2007, 10:55 PM
I would love to know what 5 idiots believe are economy is bottomless? Not even patteeu can be that ignorant. OK Chiefaroo makes 1, recxjake makes 2, anyone else?

patteeu
08-24-2007, 11:11 PM
I would love to know what 5 idiots believe are economy is bottomless? Not even patteeu can be that ignorant. OK Chiefaroo makes 1, recxjake makes 2, anyone else?

Like so many non-Rain Man polls, this one is flawed. The compound options don't cover all of the bases so you are forced to select a less than perfect answer unless, by coincidence, there happens to be a combination that matches your view. I chose to ignore the post-hyphen part of each answer since it wasn't as directly related to the question as the pre-hyphen part. I chose option 1, "Indefinitely".

I think it's possible, but unlikely, that we will have a recession before the next election, but there's no way I think our military operation is only economically sustainable for <= 1 year. I think it's considerably more likely that we will have a recession sometime not too long after the election, but again that has nothing to do with how long I think the war is economically sustainable. If the question had been "how long until the next recession?" I certainly would have selected a different option.

I sure hope that your obvious failure to recognize this flaw doesn't make you feel too ignorant for your last post. It probably should, but I hope it doesn't.

Taco John
08-24-2007, 11:13 PM
So you think that we're headed for recession, but the war has absolutely nothing to do with it?

wazu
08-24-2007, 11:14 PM
I chose option 1, "Indefinitely".

Wow. This kind of reminds me of that one time when George Bush said we should have never gotten out of Vietnam because it caused strife in Cambodia.

Endless war, the wave of the future.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 11:16 PM
So you think that we're headed for recession, but the war has absolutely nothing to do with it?

I think that if we have a recession, everything will be related to it. The economy is a complex, interrelated beast. But I don't think it will make the war economically unsustainable. That was your original question, right?

patteeu
08-24-2007, 11:19 PM
Wow. This kind of reminds me of that one time when George Bush said we should have never gotten out of Vietnam because it caused strife in Cambodia.

Endless war, the wave of the future.

Holy cow, I hope I don't have to hold every ChiefsPlanet member's hand through this. Being economically capable of sustaining the war indefinitely and wanting the war to be endless or predicting that the war should be endless (or whatever your post is supposed to be about) are completely different concepts. This really wasn't a "wow" moment unless you're shocked that I think our economy is so strong.

wazu
08-24-2007, 11:23 PM
This really wasn't a "wow" moment unless you're shocked that I think our economy is so strong.

Why does a country with such an invincible economy ever have a budget deficit? Why does it require bail-outs of banks by the Fed?

Logical
08-24-2007, 11:24 PM
Like so many non-Rain Man polls, this one is flawed. The compound options don't cover all of the bases so you are forced to select a less than perfect answer unless, by coincidence, there happens to be a combination that matches your view. I chose to ignore the post-hyphen part of each answer since it wasn't as directly related to the question as the pre-hyphen part. I chose option 1, "Indefinitely".

I think it's possible, but unlikely, that we will have a recession before the next election, but there's no way I think our military operation is only economically sustainable for <= 1 year. I think it's considerably more likely that we will have a recession sometime not too long after the election, but again that has nothing to do with how long I think the war is economically sustainable. If the question had been "how long until the next recession?" I certainly would have selected a different option.

I sure hope that your obvious failure to recognize this flaw doesn't make you feel too ignorant for your last post. It probably should, but I hope it doesn't.

It doesn't because I can read and understand complex sentences. I am still able to make choices even under those difficult circumstances. Hopefully that does not make you feel inferior since you seem to lack that ability.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 11:41 PM
Why does a country with such an invincible economy ever have a budget deficit? Why does it require bail-outs of banks by the Fed?

It has budget deficits because the government spends more money than they take in. This isn't really related to how strong the economy is although I suppose that high enough debt levels could cause problems at some point.

As for the bail-outs, the thing you should ask yourself is how strong does an economy have to be to perform these bail-outs?

I don't think you have a very good grasp on how big our economy is compared to the cost of the war. The war cost is not insignificant, but it's manageable at current levels.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you make $100,000 per year. How long could you manage to pay your rent if it was $100 per month? Less than a year? 1-3 years? 3-5? 5-7? 10+? Indefinitely? When you figure this out, you'll have figured out the answer to Taco's poll.

Whether or not our volunteer manpower resources can be sustained indefinitely is the question I'm more concerned about. We can increase the size of our volunteer military if we need to, but it will drive up the cost of the war. I don't have a very good grasp on how much.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 11:44 PM
It doesn't because I can read and understand complex sentences. I am still able to make choices even under those difficult circumstances. Hopefully that does not make you feel inferior since you seem to lack that ability.

Wonderful news. A lack of awareness can be a gift sometimes. Be thankful. :thumb:

wazu
08-25-2007, 12:06 AM
As for the bail-outs, the thing you should ask yourself is how strong does an economy have to be to perform these bail-outs?

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you make $100,000 per year. How long could you manage to pay your rent if it was $100 per month? Less than a year? 1-3 years? 3-5? 5-7? 10+? Indefinitely?

Okay, let's play the "compare it to my own budget game". First of all, if I make $100,000 a year, and my rent is only $100, at first glance it seems like I can do it indefinitely, because there is no way that I am going into debt by doing it. In fact, I imagine a nice surplus and a growing retirement fund to boot.

However, if I am like the Federal government my budget is so tight that my debt increases by $100 a month because of it, and so my $100,000 income is rendered meaningless, aside from giving me a good enough credit rating to acquire more debt. As the principle and interest on my debt grow I will start to realize that I am in trouble.

Ah, but that's where a second mortgage comes in! I'll just give myself a "bailout" by eliminating all of the equity in my home! What a truly strong and great home economy I have built for myself! I should run for office.

Taco John
08-25-2007, 12:07 AM
I think that if we have a recession, everything will be related to it. The economy is a complex, interrelated beast. But I don't think it will make the war economically unsustainable. That was your original question, right?



Do you think that the average American would agree with your assessment under the circumstances?

patteeu
08-25-2007, 12:16 AM
Okay, let's play the "compare it to my own budget game". First of all, if I make $100,000 a year, and my rent is only $100, at first glance it seems like I can do it indefinitely, because there is no way that I am going into debt by doing it. In fact, I imagine a nice surplus and a growing retirement fund to boot.

However, if I am like the Federal government my budget is so tight that my debt increases by $100 a month because of it, and so my $100,000 income is rendered meaningless, aside from giving me a good enough credit rating to acquire more debt. As the principle and interest on my debt grow I will start to realize that I am in trouble.

Ah, but that's where a second mortgage comes in! I'll just give myself a "bailout" by eliminating all of the equity in my home! What a truly strong and great home economy I have built for myself! I should run for office.

If you get the rest of your financial house in order, you will easily be able to pay for important things like your rent. It's not like rent is what's screwing up your finances in this example.

patteeu
08-25-2007, 12:22 AM
Do you think that the average American would agree with your assessment under the circumstances?

It depends on how well (s)he understands what were talking about. If your point is that the average American has been scared into believing that the cost of the war is so incredibly huge that we can't possibly sustain it much longer then you may be right. If your point is that in the middle of a recession, charlatan anti-war propagandists will try to blame the war for our economic problems then you're probably right.

wazu
08-25-2007, 12:28 AM
If you get the rest of your financial house in order, you will easily be able to pay for important things like your rent. It's not like rent is what's screwing up your finances in this example.

Agreed, but we don't, which is why it's a course for financial disaster. If I saw Bush and congress shutdown a few major entitlements and federal agencies to pay for the war, and our budget was balanced, I'd cease to be worried about the economic impact and focus only on the needless risk of our soldier's lives.

Instead, we have China threatening to push the nuclear economic button and crash the dollar. How in the hell did we get here?

Logical
08-25-2007, 12:59 AM
Wonderful news. A lack of awareness can be a gift sometimes. Be thankful. :thumb:

How long do you believe that this war is economically sustainable? - Indefinitely - Our economy is bottomless



As a statement, you truly believe the war is economically sustainable forever, that our economy is bottomless. Do you really believe that?

Taco John
08-25-2007, 01:45 AM
It depends on how well (s)he understands what were talking about. If your point is that the average American has been scared into believing that the cost of the war is so incredibly huge that we can't possibly sustain it much longer then you may be right. If your point is that in the middle of a recession, charlatan anti-war propagandists will try to blame the war for our economic problems then you're probably right.


That's an interesting take. The war is a part of why we're having a recession, but anyone who points it out is an anti-war propagandist.


For the point I was making, I don't believe that the average American is going to ignore the correlation, because it's a natuaral, intuitive conclusion. I don't think that it's going to take "carlatan anti-war propagandists" to spread any sort of message about it. If there is a recession, it's going to be the pro-war propagandists who are going to be the most busy.

Lucky for you, I see ahead to these political events and can tip you off so that you can start working on your story for when it happens. :)

Taco John
08-25-2007, 02:08 AM
Agreed, but we don't, which is why it's a course for financial disaster. If I saw Bush and congress shutdown a few major entitlements and federal agencies to pay for the war, and our budget was balanced, I'd cease to be worried about the economic impact and focus only on the needless risk of our soldier's lives.

Instead, we have China threatening to push the nuclear economic button and crash the dollar. How in the hell did we get here?

patteeu
08-25-2007, 07:51 AM
Agreed, but we don't, which is why it's a course for financial disaster. If I saw Bush and congress shutdown a few major entitlements and federal agencies to pay for the war, and our budget was balanced, I'd cease to be worried about the economic impact and focus only on the needless risk of our soldier's lives.

Instead, we have China threatening to push the nuclear economic button and crash the dollar. How in the hell did we get here?

The argument you are making could be made even if the war only cost a dime a month. If you focus on the federal budget instead of the economy as a whole, and if you make the assumption that the federal budget can't be changed in any way, we were already in trouble before the war started. The simple fact is that the war *is* sustainable, it's just a question of priorities. The US economy is plenty big to handle it.

patteeu
08-25-2007, 07:53 AM
How long do you believe that this war is economically sustainable? - Indefinitely - Our economy is bottomless



As a statement, you truly believe the war is economically sustainable forever, that our economy is bottomless. Do you really believe that?

I really believe that you either didn't read or can't understand my post #53.

Logical
08-25-2007, 02:08 PM
I really believe that you either didn't read or can't understand my post #53.In other words you are afraid of answering the real poll question. You fear its true answer.

Even just saying it can be sustained indefinitely is unrealistic.

patteeu
08-25-2007, 02:20 PM
In other words you are afraid of answering the real poll question. You fear its true answer.

So instead you try to take advantage of the secondary question in the thread header and relate that to the poll answer.

Are you really so stupid that you don't understand my explanation? Sometimes you act as if you've got a box of rocks on your shoulders.

What would your answer be to this question, A or B?:

Where do you live?

A. San Diego area - I f*cked a goat and they ran me out of KC

B. Kansas City area - Despite my eternal pessimism, I'm a Chiefs fan

Please tell me you're just playing dumb.

patteeu
08-25-2007, 02:31 PM
I've got a simple question for all the brainiacs who think the war costs are going to break us. At what dollar amount would you say that you believe our economy could indefinitely sustain the expense?

Taco John
08-25-2007, 02:44 PM
I've got a simple question for all the brainiacs who think the war costs are going to break us. At what dollar amount would you say that you believe our economy could indefinitely sustain the expense?



Dollar amount? How much is a dollar worth?

patteeu
08-25-2007, 02:53 PM
Dollar amount? How much is a dollar worth?

Haha, I guess you'd better join Logical in the sweathogs class. ;)

If it helps, I'm flexible on the currency (or alternative unit of measure) you use for expressing your answer. Maybe ounces of gold would be appropriate.

banyon
08-25-2007, 02:57 PM
I've got a simple question for all the brainiacs who think the war costs are going to break us. At what dollar amount would you say that you believe our economy could indefinitely sustain the expense?

This is not really the right question to ask. The more relevant question is at what amount ought our economy indefinitely sustain this expense?

Taco John
08-25-2007, 03:21 PM
Haha, I guess you'd better join Logical in the sweathogs class. ;)

If it helps, I'm flexible on the currency (or alternative unit of measure) you use for expressing your answer. Maybe ounces of gold would be appropriate.



I couldn't begin to guess the dollar amount, but considering that we're paying for this war by borrowing from China, I don't believe that we can sustain a war effort for 10 years, while growing the economy at the same time.

BigMeatballDave
08-25-2007, 03:33 PM
So, what do you guys think about Huard being named starter?

Taco John
08-25-2007, 03:34 PM
So, what do you guys think about Huard being named starter?



I expected it all along.

Logical
08-25-2007, 04:39 PM
I've got a simple question for all the brainiacs who think the war costs are going to break us. At what dollar amount would you say that you believe our economy could indefinitely sustain the expense?

Gee patteeu you are so smart you must have the answer.

patteeu
08-25-2007, 08:40 PM
Gee patteeu you are so smart you must have the answer.

I take it that you don't. I'm sure that your answer to this poll has more to do with your emotional opposition to the war (regardless of the relevant facts) than it does to anything related to economic sustainability.

Taco John
08-25-2007, 09:42 PM
I take it that you don't. I'm sure that your answer to this poll has more to do with your emotional opposition to the war (regardless of the relevant facts) than it does to anything related to economic sustainability.



And the inverse certainly doesn't apply to such a rational thinker such as yourself... ROFL

a1na2
08-25-2007, 09:45 PM
This is not really the right question to ask. The more relevant question is at what amount ought our economy indefinitely sustain this expense?

The answer is to do what is right, considering there is not a soul here that has that answer the point is moot.

patteeu
08-26-2007, 06:31 AM
And the inverse certainly doesn't apply to such a rational thinker such as yourself... ROFL

I've offered as much rationale for my answer as anyone in this thread. I don't think I've embarrassed myself the way Logical has. :shrug:

banyon
08-26-2007, 10:43 AM
The answer is to do what is right, considering there is not a soul here that has that answer the point is moot.

BS You don't care about our army doing what is "right". Where are all of your "Stop the genocide in Sudan" threads?

a1na2
08-26-2007, 01:41 PM
BS You don't care about our army doing what is "right". Where are all of your "Stop the genocide in Sudan" threads?

Where are all of your Sudan threads? Since when does the action going on in Sudan have anything to do with finishing the job in Iraq?

Let me answer that for you, it doesn't, it's a seperate issue. Try keeping in the game here.

Ugly Duck
08-26-2007, 01:56 PM
Indefinite. Not because our economy is "bottomless," but because we're just not paying for this war. We're borrowing the money from future generations.

There's a simple truth that righties just don't get: Increasing the national debt is a tax increase on future payers. Neocons are reducing our taxes now, but slapping tax increases on future generations to pay for it. Simple, Newtonian cause & effect.... yet too complex for righties....

penchief
08-26-2007, 03:18 PM
Indefinite. Not because our economy is "bottomless," but because we're just not paying for this war. We're borrowing the money from future generations.

There's a simple truth that righties just don't get: Increasing the national debt is a tax increase on future payers. Neocons are reducing our taxes now, but slapping tax increases on future generations to pay for it. Simple, Newtonian cause & effect.... yet too complex for righties....

And the beauty is that when responsible leadership tries to do the right thing in the future, righties will start screaming about taxes even though our infrastructure and our public welfare will be eroded to the point that the U.S. will be teetering on the brink of being a third-world country. Espicially if the bottom does drops out or our bill comes due all at once.

I hate the way they do things. They manipulate the truth to get into power. Then they abuse their power to financially reward their employers by gutting regulations and stripping us of our rights. Then when they lose elections they just rely on their benefactors to manipulate the economy again to squeeze democratic policies in order to win sway once again. It's a vicious circle that will continue until this country can agree that there are traditional ground rules that actually promote the general welfare as well as business interests. They don't have to be mutually exclusive unless profit is deemed to be the ONLY thing that matters.

Logical
08-26-2007, 04:39 PM
I've offered as much rationale for my answer as anyone in this thread. I don't think I've embarrassed myself the way Logical has. :shrug:I am not in the least embarrassed by anything I have said in this thread. I am amused at year fear in answering a simple question, even if it does have a complex sentence structure -- oooh a hyphenated clause...ROFL

a1na2
08-26-2007, 05:14 PM
I am not in the least embarrassed by anything I have said in this thread. I am amused at year fear in answering a simple question, even if it does have a complex sentence structure -- oooh a hyphenated clause...ROFL

Isn't this the same type of answer you jump my case about - minus the smiley face?

You are slipping.

Logical
08-26-2007, 07:44 PM
Isn't this the same type of answer you jump my case about - minus the smiley face?

You are slipping.

What[/caveman]

I am always giving you a hard time for also trying to avoid answering the poll questions. You and patteeu should form a club.

Adept Havelock
08-26-2007, 07:51 PM
What[/caveman]

I am always giving you a hard time for also trying to avoid answering the poll questions. You and patteeu should form a club.

Hey! There's no need to insult patteeu like that. :)

a1na2
08-26-2007, 08:57 PM
What[/caveman]

I am always giving you a hard time for also trying to avoid answering the poll questions. You and patteeu should form a club.

So that comment justifies you not addressing the point? Nice diversion - - - NOT.

Logical
08-26-2007, 09:04 PM
So that comment justifies you not addressing the point? Nice diversion - - - NOT.
You made a point?

I think I did address your question, which is you are not making sense.

a1na2
08-26-2007, 09:54 PM
You made a point?

I think I did address your question, which is you are not making sense.

You didn't answer the question at hand, you deflected. Loser.

Logical
08-26-2007, 11:27 PM
You didn't answer the question at hand, you deflected. Loser.What quetion, I did answer the only question asked, which is that you have it backwards, you are the one who avoids answering poll questions.

If you are asking me what my answer was to the poll question you can find that much earlier in the thread. I posted it.

a1na2
08-27-2007, 05:05 AM
What quetion, I did answer the only question asked, which is that you have it backwards, you are the one who avoids answering poll questions.

If you are asking me what my answer was to the poll question you can find that much earlier in the thread. I posted it.


Yeah, right.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 06:49 AM
I am not in the least embarrassed by anything I have said in this thread. I am amused at year fear in answering a simple question, even if it does have a complex sentence structure -- oooh a hyphenated clause...ROFL

You've embarassed yourself even if you're not smart enough to realize it. And I'm still waiting on your answer to my simple question:

Where do you live?

A. San Diego area - I f*cked a goat and they ran me out of KC

B. Kansas City area - Despite my eternal pessimism, I'm a Chiefs fan

Don't be afraid of the hyphens. :rolleyes:

Radar Chief
08-27-2007, 07:06 AM
100.

banyon
08-27-2007, 08:24 AM
Where are all of your Sudan threads? Since when does the action going on in Sudan have anything to do with finishing the job in Iraq?

Let me answer that for you, it doesn't, it's a seperate issue. Try keeping in the game here.

? I'm not the one claiming our army exists to do "what is right". That's your BS line.

I think our army exist to defend the national security interests of the citizens of the United States, and Iraq has exactly jack squat to do with that. But it's not a surprise to me that the analogy would fall on uncomprehending ears.

BTW stop sending me all of your lame a** private messages. THX.

a1na2
08-27-2007, 04:42 PM
? I'm not the one claiming our army exists to do "what is right". That's your BS line.

I think our army exist to defend the national security interests of the citizens of the United States, and Iraq has exactly jack squat to do with that. But it's not a surprise to me that the analogy would fall on uncomprehending ears.

BTW stop sending me all of your lame a** private messages. THX.

Never mind, you don't deserve answers.

a1na2
08-27-2007, 04:45 PM
Hey banyon,

This is a listing of all of my reps. My guess is that you don't have anything better to do. Your request for my PM's to stop seem kind of petty considering what you've done.

I've removed those with comment to save you from further embarrassment.

How long do you believe... 08-27-2007 09:36 AM banyon
How long do you believe... 08-26-2007 12:30 PM banyon
Which would you be able... 08-25-2007 06:39 PM banyon
List your choice for Pr... 08-20-2007 09:52 AM banyon
"American foreign ... 08-01-2007 09:04 AM banyon

penchief
08-27-2007, 04:51 PM
It's sustainable as long as the FORCES THAT BE choose to sustain it (i.e. not the government of the people, but rather, the forces that be).

Logical
08-27-2007, 05:01 PM
You've embarassed yourself even if you're not smart enough to realize it. And I'm still waiting on your answer to my simple question:



Don't be afraid of the hyphens. :rolleyes:

Not sure how the hyphen in

Indefinitely - Our economy is bottomless

is similar to your example. In fact it would seem that Indefinite and Our economy is bottomless is saying pretty much exactly the same thing.

So one more time do you really believe our economy cannot fail, ever, that it is just not possible?

Logical
08-27-2007, 05:02 PM
Hey banyon,

This is a listing of all of my reps. My guess is that you don't have anything better to do. Your request for my PM's to stop seem kind of petty considering what you've done.

I've removed those with comment to save you from further embarrassment.

How long do you believe... 08-27-2007 09:36 AM banyon
How long do you believe... 08-26-2007 12:30 PM banyon
Which would you be able... 08-25-2007 06:39 PM banyon
List your choice for Pr... 08-20-2007 09:52 AM banyon
"American foreign ... 08-01-2007 09:04 AM banyon

Wow that is really embarassing, NOT.:rolleyes:

patteeu
08-27-2007, 05:21 PM
Not sure how the hyphen in

Indefinitely - Our economy is bottomless

is similar to your example. In fact it would seem that Indefinite and Our economy is bottomless is saying pretty much exactly the same thing.

So one more time do you really believe our economy cannot fail, ever, that it is just not possible?

Well that explains your confusion, I guess. I explained the problem in post 53. Beyond that, I've fully explained the rationale behind my answer in my other posts in this thread. And just to clear up one more point on which you're obviously confused: I've never said anything about the economy being unable to fail.

banyon
08-27-2007, 05:44 PM
Hey banyon,

This is a listing of all of my reps. My guess is that you don't have anything better to do. Your request for my PM's to stop seem kind of petty considering what you've done.

I've removed those with comment to save you from further embarrassment.

How long do you believe... 08-27-2007 09:36 AM banyon
How long do you believe... 08-26-2007 12:30 PM banyon
Which would you be able... 08-25-2007 06:39 PM banyon
List your choice for Pr... 08-20-2007 09:52 AM banyon
"American foreign ... 08-01-2007 09:04 AM banyon

If your question is whether or not your posts are deserving of negative rep, then I guess you have your answer.

a1na2
08-27-2007, 05:44 PM
Wow that is really embarassing,...

I'd say that if I had a rack full of reps from various people it wouldn't be embarrassing.

All I have are reps from banyon, the dude is obsessed. I don't swing that way though, he might want to go back to the Blue Lagoon.

a1na2
08-27-2007, 05:46 PM
If your question is whether or not your posts are deserving of negative rep, then I guess you have your answer.

Quite a few of my posts might be deserving, those that you are hitting are not. You need to either get a real life or go back to the Blue Lagoon where those types are rumored to hang out.

banyon
08-27-2007, 05:51 PM
Quite a few of my posts might be deserving, those that you are hitting are not. You need to either get a real life or go back to the Blue Lagoon where those types are rumored to hang out.

I don't know what that is, but you seem to be familiar with it... :hmmm:

a1na2
08-27-2007, 05:58 PM
I don't know what that is, but you seem to be familiar with it... :hmmm:

I'm sure you are familiar with it. You were seen there in Police Academy. (try watching movies sometime, you might unwind.)

It's also very obvious that you do know what the reference means, otherwise you wouldn't have put the ending on your post.

Looks like you've been caught with your pants down at the Blue Lagoon!


ROFL

banyon
08-27-2007, 06:03 PM
I'm sure you are familiar with it. You were seen there in Police Academy. (try watching movies sometime, you might unwind.)

It's also very obvious that you do know what the reference means, otherwise you wouldn't have put the ending on your post.

Looks like you've been caught with your pants down at the Blue Lagoon!


ROFL

I had no idea that the reference was from Police Academy, but it was obvious from the context of your post since most of your humor consists of gay jokes, and pretty lame ones at that.

Logical
08-27-2007, 06:24 PM
Well that explains your confusion, I guess. I explained the problem in post 53. Beyond that, I've fully explained the rationale behind my answer in my other posts in this thread. And just to clear up one more point on which you're obviously confused: I've never said anything about the economy being unable to fail.OK so we made some progress, you agree that the economy can fail. So do you believe the war can possibly cause the economy to fail, ever?

patteeu
08-27-2007, 06:41 PM
OK so we made some progress, you agree that the economy can fail. So do you believe the war can possibly cause the economy to fail, ever?

No at the current rate of cost and foreseeable levels of GDP, hence my vote for option 1.

I qualify my answer to you because you've asked a different question than the poll question. If you're asking me are there any circumstances, no matter how unforeseeable, in which the war *could* cause the economy to collapse, I'd say sure. That wasn't Taco's question though.

a1na2
08-27-2007, 06:44 PM
I had no idea that the reference was from Police Academy, but it was obvious from the context of your post since most of your humor consists of gay jokes, and pretty lame ones at that.

They go with lame people, hence you get the jokes.

I make fun of gays, you being one makes you an easy target.

penchief
08-27-2007, 07:04 PM
They go with lame people, hence you get the jokes.

I make fun of gays, you being one makes you an easy target.

What does "a1na2" stand for?

a1na2
08-27-2007, 07:20 PM
What does "a1na2" stand for?

The music man.

Logical
08-27-2007, 08:13 PM
No at the current rate of cost and foreseeable levels of GDP, hence my vote for option 1.

I qualify my answer to you because you've asked a different question than the poll question. If you're asking me are there any circumstances, no matter how unforeseeable, in which the war *could* cause the economy to collapse, I'd say sure. That wasn't Taco's question though.You really believe we can continue to spend in excess of 300 billion a year forever? Go ahead and assume that we continue to spend on everything else at current levels as well. I really am interested in your answer? Oh and no increase in taxes either.

Logical
08-27-2007, 08:15 PM
What does "a1na2" stand for?

A 1 and a 2

banyon
08-27-2007, 08:16 PM
They go with lame people, hence you get the jokes.

I make fun of gays, you being one makes you an easy target.

I screwed a chick last night, but if it makes you feel better about your pathetic POS life to think I'm gay, then whatever.

penchief
08-27-2007, 08:16 PM
A 1 and a 2

So it means, three? Or it means, twelve?

patteeu
08-27-2007, 09:15 PM
You really believe we can continue to spend in excess of 300 billion a year forever? Go ahead and assume that we continue to spend on everything else at current levels as well. I really am interested in your answer? Oh and no increase in taxes either.

I don't accept your constraints. They weren't in the originals poll. With your constraints, I don't believe we can afford $0 a year for war or for repaired bridges and roads or for anything else forever. Our government is in deficit and our entitlements are scheduled to break the bank on their own, afterall. However, I believe we can afford the war at the current level if we need to, indefinitely.

The war represents a cost of about $100 per month on $100,000 annual income. Are you telling me you couldn't swing that if you had to?

patteeu
08-27-2007, 09:16 PM
So it means, three? Or it means, twelve?

Goodness gracious, I hope you're kidding. Think Lawrence Welk.

Logical
08-27-2007, 09:39 PM
I don't accept your constraints. They weren't in the originals poll. With your constraints, I don't believe we can afford $0 a year for war or for repaired bridges and roads or for anything else forever. Our government is in deficit and our entitlements are scheduled to break the bank on their own, afterall. However, I believe we can afford the war at the current level if we need to, indefinitely.

The war represents a cost of about $100 per month on $100,000 annual income. Are you telling me you couldn't swing that if you had to?

Not sure I believe your math.

a1na2
08-27-2007, 09:48 PM
I screwed a chick last night, but if it makes you feel better about your pathetic POS life to think I'm gay, then whatever.

You are a lawyer, you screw anyone that walks in the door.

a1na2
08-27-2007, 09:49 PM
Goodness gracious, I hope you're kidding. Think Lawrence Welk.

Think movie; The Music Man

Think HS Band director.

Think drummer for rock and roll band.

Lawrence the Polish Prince?

patteeu
08-27-2007, 09:54 PM
Not sure I believe your math.

OK, make it $200 per month. Your $300 billion per year is a little high, but if we go with that it works out to less than $200 per month.

a1na2
08-27-2007, 09:56 PM
OK, make it $200 per month. Your $300 billion per year is a little high, but if we go with that it works out to less than $200 per month.

I doubt that many of us are making 6 figures here. But if I were making 6 figures the amount of money going to taxes would be transparent as to what they went for. It's likely that my $22.00 a month in federal taxes go to welfare recipients.

Taco John
08-27-2007, 09:58 PM
The war represents a cost of about $100 per month on $100,000 annual income. Are you telling me you couldn't swing that if you had to?



What are you basing your figures on?

patteeu
08-27-2007, 10:04 PM
What are you basing your figures on?

The annual cost of the war and the 2006 US GDP. My $100 figure is probably a little low because it is an averaged cost rather than the cost of the most recent year while we've been surging, but I believe Logical's number is high. The GDP is in excess of $13,000,000,000,000. I don't remember the exact number now but it's easy to google. Even using that number and Logical's $300 billion though, it comes out to something like $192 per month out of an annual income of $100,000.

IIRC, I was using an annual cost of approximately $144 billion for the war when I came up with the $100 per month figure yesterday.

Taco John
08-27-2007, 10:06 PM
The annual cost of the war and the 2006 US GDP. My $100 figure is probably a little low because it is an averaged cost rather than the cost of the most recent year while we've been surging, but I believe Logical's number is high. The GDP is in excess of $13,000,000,000,000. I don't remember the exact number now but it's easy to google. Even using that number and Logical's $300 billion though, it comes out to something like $192 per month out of an annual income of $100,000.



Where is the part where we are borrowing money from China to pay for it?

patteeu
08-27-2007, 10:14 PM
Where is the part where we are borrowing money from China to pay for it?

Servicing and retiring our nation's debt has to come out of the remainder of the $100,000, just like the way you pay your credit cards and mortgage.

Taco John
08-27-2007, 10:19 PM
Remainder?

wazu
08-27-2007, 10:20 PM
The annual cost of the war and the 2006 US GDP. My $100 figure is probably a little low because it is an averaged cost rather than the cost of the most recent year while we've been surging, but I believe Logical's number is high. The GDP is in excess of $13,000,000,000,000. I don't remember the exact number now but it's easy to google. Even using that number and Logical's $300 billion though, it comes out to something like $192 per month out of an annual income of $100,000.

Not sure what the GDP has to do with it, but...

Looking at the report from the Treasury's website, it looks like the revenue for 2006 was around 2.4 trillion. If I use Logical's number of $300 billion, that actually works out to close to patteau's figures.

Of course, if we did away with the war, we would be about $150 billion away from a balanced budget. (Oh, and a few less American soldiers would be killed.) Close down a few military bases around the world and bring them all back home, and that sounds like a pretty damn good start in the right direction.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 10:26 PM
Not sure what the GDP has to do with it, but...

Looking at the report from the Treasury's website, it looks like the revenue for 2006 was around 2.4 trillion. If I uses Logical's number of $300 billion, that actually works out to close to patteau's figures.

Of course, if we did away with the war, we would be about $150 billion away from a balanced budget. (Oh, and a few less American soldiers would be killed.) Close down a few military bases around the world and bring them all back home, and that sounds like a pretty damn good start in the right direction.

I think your math is off a bit (an order of magnitude or so).

The GDP is the best measure that I know of of the wealth creation of our country. That's why I'm comparing the cost of the war to the GDP. The war is a cost to the country, not to the government. The economy isn't the size of the federal budget, it's the size of the GDP.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 10:27 PM
Remainder?

Elaborate?

Taco John
08-27-2007, 10:29 PM
According to our national income is 9,679,700,000,000.


According to [url=http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/]this article (]this[/url), Congress estimated the war costs to be abou $2 Billion per week, putting the war at somewhere around $104 Billion in 2006, which is a low ball number.

The most recent funding bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402570.html) was for $120 Billion, which is only supposed to cover expenses through September.

I don't know that the war would be the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't see what we're getting out of it though, given the costs. We have an undeclared war, an uncommitted nation, an ingrateful Iraq, and no end in sight. We hear talk about grasping defeat in the face of victory, but that's empty rhetoric. We're nowhere near achieving the political victory that would make that true.

Taco John
08-27-2007, 10:34 PM
Elaborate?



You said remainder, as though there were remainder... Why are we borrowing money from China if we have all this money to blow?

patteeu
08-27-2007, 10:35 PM
According to our national income is 9,679,700,000,000.


According to [url=http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/]this article (]this[/url), Congress estimated the war costs to be abou $2 Billion per week, putting the war at somewhere around $104 Billion in 2006, which is a low ball number.

The most recent funding bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402570.html) was for $120 Billion, which is only supposed to cover expenses through September.

I don't know that the war would be the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't see what we're getting out of it though, given the costs. We have an undeclared war, an uncommitted nation, an ingrateful Iraq, and no end in sight. We hear talk about grasping defeat in the face of victory, but that's empty rhetoric. We're nowhere near achieving the political victory that would make that true.

Your first link is broken.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 10:36 PM
Elaborate?

Oh, I see. I meant that after you pay for the war out of your $100,000 annual income, you also have to pay for the cost of the debt and any repayment you are making. I haven't looked up those costs.

Taco John
08-27-2007, 10:37 PM
Your first link is broken.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/

wazu
08-27-2007, 10:40 PM
I think you're math is off a bit (an order of magnitude or so).

The GDP is the best measure that I know of of the wealth creation of our country. That's why I'm comparing the cost of the war to the GDP. The war is a cost to the country, not to the government. The economy isn't the size of the federal budget, it's the size of the GDP.

You are right. Sorry for the fuzzy math. Let me try again:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06frusg.pdf

2.5 trillion annual revenue
300 billion / 12 = 25 billion monthly war expense

Divide both by 10,000,000

Now divide both by 2.5.

You get an annual income of $100,000, with a monthly war budget of $1,000.


Edit: updated to give it round numbers.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 10:40 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/

No, the one about national income.

patteeu
08-27-2007, 10:48 PM
You are right. Sorry for the fuzzy math. Let me try again:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06frusg.pdf

2.5 trillion annual revenue
300 billion / 12 = 25 billion monthly war expense

Divide both by 10,000,000

You get an annual income of $250,000, with a monthly war budget of $2,500.

That looks right. When you look exclusively at the federal budget and federal revenues, the cost of the war is a significant chunk. I don't think we could continue with this cost of war indefinitely without either making substantial cuts in other government programs or increasing revenues or both. But I'm very confident we could sustain it indefinitely without going bankrupt as a country (which is where GDP comes in). Obviously, if it went on for a really long time, it would require some significant sacrifice (e.g. increased taxes, decreased entitlement spending). In any event, I think manpower constraints will dictate a drawdown long before economic constraints do. And, if we are the paper tiger that Osama believes we are, political constraints will come even sooner than that.

wazu
08-27-2007, 10:51 PM
In any event, I think manpower constraints will dictate a drawdown long before economic constraints do. And, if we are the paper tiger that Osama believes we are, political constraints will come even sooner than that.

What a tragedy that would be, to have our politicians step in and do something before we run out of live soldiers to send to Iraq. Just like they did to us with Vietnam! And look what happened! Our guys stopped dying! DAMN THEM!

:cuss:

banyon
08-27-2007, 11:01 PM
What does "a1na2" stand for?

1 in the anus, 2 in the other holes (non-anal).

patteeu
08-27-2007, 11:03 PM
What a tragedy that would be, to have our politicians step in and do something before we run out of live soldiers to send to Iraq. Just like they did to us with Vietnam! And look what happened! Our guys stopped dying! DAMN THEM!

:cuss:

There are worse things than men dying for their country. And unlike Vietnam, almost every soldier and marine in Iraq is a volunteer who has had a chance to get out of the service since 9/11 so it's not like they are being thrown into something they had no idea was in their future.

wazu
08-27-2007, 11:25 PM
There are worse things than men dying for their country.

I wholeheartedly agree. If I really believed that the fate of my country rested on establishing Democracy in Iraq, I'd be over there right now.

And unlike Vietnam, almost every soldier and marine in Iraq is a volunteer who has had a chance to get out of the service since 9/11 so it's not like they are being thrown into something they had no idea was in their future.

God bless them. Such devotion should be rewarded with responsible foreign policy that places a high value on their lives, and brings them home ASAP. We won the war years ago. Why it is that we think we have to rebuild a nation whose ass we have already kicked?

a1na2
08-27-2007, 11:35 PM
1 in the anus, 2 in the other holes (non-anal).


In your world I'm sure that's the way you take it.

UBQueer dude.