Members HackedByChinese! Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Actually, I was referring to the "bankrupting the nation to pay for a pointless war in Iraq?" line of bull{censored}... It's been pointed out many times in the past just how miniscule the costs of the war in Iraq are, when compared to overall spending... Is not most or all of the financing for Iraq and the WOT as a whole being floated on credit, therefore substantially adding to the federal deficit? $2.4 trillion is not a miniscule amount. and that there were/are valid strategic reasons for invading Iraq... Have they found those WMDs yet? :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Is not most or all of the financing for Iraq and the WOT as a whole being floated on credit, therefore substantially adding to the federal deficit? $2.4 trillion is not a miniscule amount.Have they found those WMDs yet? :poke: I just love those projected, add both wars, include interest, guestimates. Seriously, the Iraq war casts about 100 billion real dolllars a year. That equals about 3% of what the govermnment spends per year. Certainly expensive, but also not the major overspending that has gotten us n this current state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 I just love those projected, add both wars, include interest, guestimates. Seriously, the Iraq war casts about 100 billion real dolllars a year. That equals about 3% of what the govermnment spends per year. Certainly expensive, but also not the major overspending that has gotten us n this current state. Thanks for interjecting a little reality on the subject, lug - apparantly, it was needed... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 I just love those projected, add both wars, include interest, guestimates. Seriously, the Iraq war casts about 100 billion real dolllars a year. What's the difference between "real" dollars and the dollars the rest of us have to deal with? It's a loan (or a group of loans) from somewhere, and said loan has terms-is it really so silly to project its final costs when payment is due? Should I just ignore the fact that I'll have to pay interest on the auto loan I'll be acquiring shortly when projecting its total cost, so that I only end up with its cost in "real" dollars? That equals about 3% of what the govermnment spends per year. Certainly expensive, but also not the major overspending that has gotten us n this current state. Where's the rest of this overspending coming from, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 What's the difference between "real" dollars and the dollars the rest of us have to deal with? It's a loan (or a group of loans) from somewhere, and said loan has terms-is it really so silly to project its final costs when payment is due? Should I just ignore the fact that I'll have to pay interest on the auto loan I'll be acquiring shortly when projecting its total cost, so that I only end up with its cost in "real" dollars? Where's the rest of this overspending coming from, in your opinion? The point is these calculations are worthless. They mislead people into thinking the Iraq war is the only overrun and everything would be balanced otherwise. History shows we always overrun and an honest, non-political accounting would just show the percentage of overrun in all government spending, not just cherry-picking spending they don't like. But then those figures couldn't be inflated to such earth shattering levels, could they? Overspending is in every level of government and every program from what I've seen. Giant bureaucracies just aren't efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 The point is these calculations are worthless. They mislead people into thinking the Iraq war is the only overrun and everything would be balanced otherwise. History shows we always overrun and an honest, non-political accounting would just show the percentage of overrun in all government spending, not just cherry-picking spending they don't like. But then those figures couldn't be inflated to such earth shattering levels, could they? I don't disagree with anything in your post, but the figures in that article are from the Congressional Budget Office, which I don't believe is in the business of inflating costs to fit the spin for a given story. The main point is that it's a not-insignificant cost that is being financed through debt. Everything else is a matter of opinion and context. Overspending is in every level of government and every program from what I've seen. Giant bureaucracies just aren't efficient. Do you believe that Obama's promise to go through the federal budget line-by-line with a scalpel will come to pass, and if so, will it be helpful in this regard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members W. M. Hellinger Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Perhaps I should be stocking up on guns and ammunition. I believe you're too late. I think most of the good stuff is already off the shelves, and the dregs that's left is going for premium price to those who are willing to take a number and wait in-line long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 The point is these calculations are worthless. They mislead people into thinking the Iraq war is the only overrun and everything would be balanced otherwise. History shows we always overrun and an honest, non-political accounting would just show the percentage of overrun in all government spending, not just cherry-picking spending they don't like. But then those figures couldn't be inflated to such earth shattering levels, could they? Overspending is in every level of government and every program from what I've seen. Giant bureaucracies just aren't efficient. Wait. do you mean that a smaller federal government could actually be a good idea? Why is this the first time I've heard this idea??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 I believe you're too late. I think most of the good stuff is already off the shelves, and the dregs that's left is going for premium price to those who are willing to take a number and wait in-line long enough. Nah. I have purchased several guns in the last few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted February 2, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 2, 2009 Hey, could be like our stupid government.. to stimulate the economy they decided it would be a good idea to give pensioners and single parents $2000 (or whatever it was)..So they all put it in the bank..None got spent, economy got no kick start, now we have a deficit.. Their plan this week? give low income earners a tax cut.. Uhh.. nice.. but they are already struggling, giving them a tax cut won't give them any discernible extra disposable income, it will give them more to get by (again, thats a good thing, but won't really have the desired effect..). Dood, we already had a deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted February 2, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Wait. do you mean that a smaller federal government could actually be a good idea? Why is this the first time I've heard this idea??? Why? Because neither the R's or D's actually support the idea. If they did, it would be smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted February 2, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 2, 2009 Actually, I was referring to the "bankrupting the nation to pay for a pointless war in Iraq?" line of bull{censored}... It's been pointed out many times in the past just how miniscule the costs of the war in Iraq are, when compared to overall spending - and that there were/are valid strategic reasons for invading Iraq... - georgestrings Minuscule? Oooookay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 I don't disagree with anything in your post, but the figures in that article are from the Congressional Budget Office, which I don't believe is in the business of inflating costs to fit the spin for a given story.The main point is that it's a not-insignificant cost that is being financed through debt. Everything else is a matter of opinion and context. Do you believe that Obama's promise to go through the federal budget line-by-line with a scalpel will come to pass, and if so, will it be helpful in this regard? I just find articles like that to be more inflamitory than informative. Obama doesn't have line item veto powers so I don't know how effective it would be. He can use the presidency as a bully pulpit if he so chooses. That would certainly make some congressmen squirm. Of course, he has to watch out for calls of partisanship politics if he goes after repub pet projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted February 2, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 2, 2009 Do you believe that Obama's promise to go through the federal budget line-by-line with a scalpel will come to pass, and if so, will it be helpful in this regard? I don't. I don't believe it will come to pass, so it will not be helpful. Seriously, every President since at least Nixon has promised this, and none has followed through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Why? Because neither the R's or D's actually support the idea. If they did, it would be smaller.Wait. Do yo mean we actually have to trust the people who run our government to restrict its size and amount of power an influence?Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Seriously, every President since at least Nixon has promised this, and none has followed through. Because they all know they don't actually have any authority to do so. Now, power? Some have had it, some haven't. No one's been willing to use it. If Obama is willing to piss off his own party to rally the population, he could force their hand. Of course, I think I've got a roughly equal chance of developing a mutant healing factor and changing my name to Wolverine as I do of seeing that happen...so I'm not holding my breath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr.Mow Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Dood, we already had a deficit. Oh, I was talking about OUR (Australia) government.. who seem to be following your government down a {censored}ty path.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 An eye opener (putting the Gore bashing aside)... This guy didn't explain a damned thing. No context, no discussion of inflation, recession, what the point of the gold standard was and why we're no longer on it. There's no serious representation from the other side of his rant. Look. The guy is on television. What does television do? It inflames people so they'll watch commercials. This video is as serious as watching Milton Berle hit Jack Benny in the face with a pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 See below. Now we're gonna keep score on who's right, who's wrong, and who can predict the future? Nothing serious has been presented in this thread up to this point. We've got a video of a television guy and the drama he builds around his red line. Ok. Now teach us something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lokidecat Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 y'see? Change is coming. All my dollars will be pennies. When it's all said and done, all I'll have is loose change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 y'see? Change is coming.All my dollars will be pennies. When it's all said and done, all I'll have is loose change. We are all going to be ok. And remember, "in the long run, we're all dead." So, with that as your certain future, you're going to be fine. Don't be startled by that silly man and his red line. In the long run, he'll be dead, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lokidecat Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 We are all going to be ok. And remember, "in the long run, we're all dead." So, with that as your certain future, you're going to be fine.Don't be startled by that silly man and his red line. In the long run, he'll be dead, too. Not TOO startled yet. I won't finish my college degree for at least a year. Then I can either continue to Master's or a PostBacc maybe depending. When it's late summer of 2010 and I'm trying to get investors to start my own company, that's when I'll know if the economy is recovering or if i'm {censored}ed out of my brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny_Crab Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Folks ain't gonna loan to the world's biggest debtor nation forever.When/if the wonderboys in charge of printing fiat money do so without loans because no oneis buying....it won't take long for us to understand Iceland's situation.yet another basic technical analysis principle is that an "M" formation (otherwise known as a "double top") usually retraces the at least the entire run that produced the left-side of the "M". We can argue over whether that's 200 or 450 - either is really, really bad.http://market-ticker.org/archives/759-Here-It-Comes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Not TOO startled yet. I won't finish my college degree for at least a year.Then I can either continue to Master's or a PostBacc maybe depending.When it's late summer of 2010 and I'm trying to get investors to start my own company, that's when I'll know if the economy is recovering or if i'm {censored}ed out of my brains. Detach your success from whatever tales are swirling around you. There are people who are prospering in spite of claims that economies are unraveling and there are no jobs. And, you can be {censored}ed out of your brains in a fantastic economy. All of your dreams may not come true, and that's ok if you're graceful about it. You are going to be fine--even if you die sitting at the kitchen table worrying about a bad economy. You're going to be perfectly fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Mango Posted February 2, 2009 Members Share Posted February 2, 2009 Folks ain't gonna loan to the world's biggest debtor nation forever. When/if the wonderboys in charge of printing fiat money do so without loans because no oneis buying....it won't take long for us to understand Iceland's situation. yet another basic technical analysis principle is that an "M" formation (otherwise known as a "double top") usually retraces the at least the entire run that produced the left-side of the "M". We can argue over whether that's 200 or 450 - either is really, really bad.http://market-ticker.org/archives/759-Here-It-Comes.html What is Iceland's situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.