Half a BILLION down the drain

[GG]

One of the dumbest thing Obama did was put the wars on budget because it allows idiots to think Obama is spending way more than Bush.

 

iirc the wars were on budget in 2nd Bush term.

Edited September 1, 2011 by GG

[DC Tom]

One of the dumbest thing Obama did was put the wars on budget because it allows idiots to think Obama is spending way more than Bush.

 

Actually, Bush put them on-budget when the Democrats took over Congress. Pretty smart move - hide the expenditures in supplemental funding bills when the Republicans have control, then put the expenditures in the budget and dare the feckless Democrats to cut it.

 

Oh come on! What about the "he tried killing my daddy" thing?

 

 

$ 800 million? Oh please! I would have to respectfully disagree here. Veterans benefits alone to Iraq Vets are going to costs in the billions....for many decades to come! Equipment replacement is another huge cost. And the higher gas prices that resulted from the invasion pulled billions and billions out of the economy. I'd have to say the $3trillion is much closer the mark than 800 million? 800 million, that's outrageously low. It costs more each month for that war

 

Fortunately, if we use the same logic your party uses for unfunded Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security liabilities, the unfunded Veterans benefits and equipment replacement don't count.

 

I could go into an explanation of cost vs. accrual accounting here, and how it's pretty much invalid to cherry-pick your methods depending on the a priori point you want to make...but that would involve too many big words for you. You're much more likely to comprehend "You're an idiot."

 

So...You're an idiot.

[1billsfan]

This just in...the world isn't flat and keynesian economics doesn't work.

 

But don't dispair, while he may be as dumb as a box of rocks our president is cool!

[bladiebla]

Actually, that's not a true or even CLOSE to being an accurate number. Having said that the war in Iraq was a mistake, but your number is still waaaaaaay off the mark.

 

Try under $800M since it began, meaning that not even the total amount was under the Bush administration, but thanks for playing.

 

http://costofwar.com/en/

 

Errr, that 3 trillion is a conservative official figure dating back to 2008.

 

For the those saying that I threw in a stereotypical response... I sure did! Stereotypical trolling requires stereotypical responses! The Republicans spend and the Democrats clean up, been that way ever since...

[TPS]

Oh come on! What about the "he tried killing my daddy" thing?

 

 

$ 800 million? Oh please! I would have to respectfully disagree here. Veterans benefits alone to Iraq Vets are going to costs in the billions....for many decades to come! Equipment replacement is another huge cost. And the higher gas prices that resulted from the invasion pulled billions and billions out of the economy. I'd have to say the $3trillion is much closer the mark than 800 million? 800 million, that's outrageously low. It costs more each month for that war

Dave, I think he might have mis-read his own site. As I learned it, when you have nine numbers in front of a another number, that puts it into billions...

[DC Tom]

Errr, that 3 trillion is a conservative official figure dating back to 2008.

 

It depends on how you define cost. Direct costs (i.e., that actually spent IN Iraq) is about $800B.

 

Indirect costs, including interest on money borrowed to pay the direct costs, "long term care for veterans", equipment maintenance, various other sundries...are estimated to be in the $2-3 trillion range over the next 40 years.

 

Operative words being "estimated" and "next 40 years". Not chump change, but stating "the war cost three trillion" is misleading as hell, since we haven't spent even close to that amount yet.

[OCinBuffalo]

This just in...the world isn't flat and keynesian economics doesn't work.

 

But don't dispair, while he may be as dumb as a box of rocks our president is cool!

Uh...Keynesian economics can work. If it is done properly. If it is not used to solve structural employment issues. Education solves structural. Government spending on Demand(Keynesian multiplier) does not.

 

I know, I know, what the hell? How can I, of all people, say that? Easy. I tell the truth. Tough schit if you don't like it. Keynesian economics works just like any other tool, and, just like any other tool, it can be abused, misused, and flat out FUBARed. The problem is: Keynes himself would disagree with most "Keynesian" economists of today. Most of these people are merely socialists. I know, we aren't supposed to use that word. But, when we talk in terms of economics, unlike politics, things have to mean what they say, and in economics, socialism means socialism.

 

More truth: if Obama had created a team of people including Magox, SDS, EryntheRed, TPS, and myself, put us in charge of spending the stimulus money, and instructed us to strictly apply Keynesian principles...the stimulus probably would have worked. Really. The problem here is not the tool. The problem is the tools...that have taken Keynes' work far beyond his imagining and far beyond all practicality....into the socialist/Environtologist land of unicorns, rainbows and green shovels.

 

Keynes would never have suggested that we massively spend money on unproven technologies. Instead, he would have supported spending that increased demand for consumer goods, and also, lowered the cost of raw materials, food, and any other component that is used to create consumer goods. Consumerism!

 

Instead, we have had to endure bastards and their bastardizing.

It depends on how you define cost. Direct costs (i.e., that actually spent IN Iraq) is about $800B.

 

Indirect costs, including interest on money borrowed to pay the direct costs, "long term care for veterans", equipment maintenance, various other sundries...are estimated to be in the $2-3 trillion range over the next 40 years.

 

Operative words being "estimated" and "next 40 years". Not chump change, but stating "the war cost three trillion" is misleading as hell, since we haven't spent even close to that amount yet.

What? Don't you know that misleading is what all propagandists like bladiebla rely on? How much do you want to bet bladiebla is from Europe...where lies(too strong? major distortion?) like this are commonplace. But, guess what happens when you stack (we are going with distortion then?) upon distortion over the course of 60 years? You get: Greece, Spain, etc.

 

Hysterical. The walls are falling all around Europe, and their whole model is being severely exposed....yet they still want to claim superiority over us. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Edited September 2, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Uh...Keynesian economics can work. If it is done properly. If it is not used to solve structural employment issues. Education solves structural. Government spending on Demand(Keynesian multiplier) does not.

 

I know, I know, what the hell? How can I, of all people, say that? Easy. I tell the truth. Tough schit if you don't like it. Keynesian economics works just like any other tool, and, just like any other tool, it can be abused, misused, and flat out FUBARed. The problem is: Keynes himself would disagree with most "Keynesian" economists of today. Most of these people are merely socialists. I know, we aren't supposed to use that word. But, when we talk in terms of economics, unlike politics, things have to mean what they say, and in economics, socialism means socialism.

 

More truth: if Obama had created a team of people including Magox, SDS, EryntheRed, TPS, and myself, put us in charge of spending the stimulus money, and instructed us to strictly apply Keynesian principles...the stimulus probably would have worked. Really. The problem here is not the tool. The problem is the tools...that have taken Keynes' work far beyond his imagining and far beyond all practicality....into the socialist/Environtologist land of unicorns, rainbows and green shovels.

 

Keynes would never have suggested that we massively spend money on unproven technologies. Instead, he would have supported spending that increased demand for consumer goods, and also, lowered the cost of raw materials, food, and any other component that is used to create consumer goods. Consumerism!

 

Instead, we have had to endure bastards and their bastardizing.

 

What? Don't you know that misleading is what all propagandists like bladiebla rely on? How much do you want to bet bladiebla is from Europe...where lies(too strong? major distortion?) like this are commonplace. But, guess what happens when you stack (we are going with distortion then?) upon distortion over the course of 60 years? You get: Greece, Spain, etc.

 

Hysterical. The walls are falling all around Europe, and their whole model is being severely exposed....yet they still want to claim superiority over us. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Greece and Spain??? Wow, you really are ignorant. Comparing those Euro-states to our country? Go have another drink you jackwagon

[KD in CA]

Greece and Spain??? Wow, you really are ignorant. Comparing those Euro-states to our country? Go have another drink you jackwagon

 

Yes, he'd be much better off pointing to Sweden as evidence that socialism can work in the US.

[Alaska Darin]

Greece and Spain??? Wow, you really are ignorant. Comparing those Euro-states to our country? Go have another drink you jackwagon

Nice attempt at cherry picking, you yammering monkey.

[GG]

Greece and Spain??? Wow, you really are ignorant. Comparing those Euro-states to our country? Go have another drink you jackwagon

 

OK, use Italy.

[Magox]

Dave, I think he might have mis-read his own site. As I learned it, when you have nine numbers in front of a another number, that puts it into billions...

Not mis-read... Clealy that was suppose to be a B instead of an M.

 

Errr, that 3 trillion is a conservative official figure dating back to 2008.

 

For the those saying that I threw in a stereotypical response... I sure did! Stereotypical trolling requires stereotypical responses! The Republicans spend and the Democrats clean up, been that way ever since...

Nope...That guesstimate from 08 is the same person who attempts to validate it today. And for your last comment... You sir are a Moron.

[TPS]

Uh...Keynesian economics can work. If it is done properly. If it is not used to solve structural employment issues. Education solves structural. Government spending on Demand(Keynesian multiplier) does not.

 

I know, I know, what the hell? How can I, of all people, say that? Easy. I tell the truth. Tough schit if you don't like it. Keynesian economics works just like any other tool, and, just like any other tool, it can be abused, misused, and flat out FUBARed. The problem is: Keynes himself would disagree with most "Keynesian" economists of today. Most of these people are merely socialists. I know, we aren't supposed to use that word. But, when we talk in terms of economics, unlike politics, things have to mean what they say, and in economics, socialism means socialism.

 

More truth: if Obama had created a team of people including Magox, SDS, EryntheRed, TPS, and myself, put us in charge of spending the stimulus money, and instructed us to strictly apply Keynesian principles...the stimulus probably would have worked. Really. The problem here is not the tool. The problem is the tools...that have taken Keynes' work far beyond his imagining and far beyond all practicality....into the socialist/Environtologist land of unicorns, rainbows and green shovels.

 

Keynes would never have suggested that we massively spend money on unproven technologies. Instead, he would have supported spending that increased demand for consumer goods, and also, lowered the cost of raw materials, food, and any other component that is used to create consumer goods. Consumerism!

 

Instead, we have had to endure bastards and their bastardizing.

 

What? Don't you know that misleading is what all propagandists like bladiebla rely on? How much do you want to bet bladiebla is from Europe...where lies(too strong? major distortion?) like this are commonplace. But, guess what happens when you stack (we are going with distortion then?) upon distortion over the course of 60 years? You get: Greece, Spain, etc.

 

Hysterical. The walls are falling all around Europe, and their whole model is being severely exposed....yet they still want to claim superiority over us. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Nice to see someone understands there is a difference between Keynes' economics and "Keynesian Economics," as it is practiced in most places.

 

In actuality, Keynes' ideas on government spending are more complex. He suggests breaking the budget into two components, "government consumption" and a capital budget. He argued that the consumption budget should be in balance as much as possible, and the capital budget should be used to deficit spend during recessions--borrow and spend on building public infrastructure.

[OCinBuffalo]

Nice to see someone understands there is a difference between Keynes' economics and "Keynesian Economics," as it is practiced in most places.

 

In actuality, Keynes' ideas on government spending are more complex. He suggests breaking the budget into two components, "government consumption" and a capital budget. He argued that the consumption budget should be in balance as much as possible, and the capital budget should be used to deficit spend during recessions--borrow and spend on building public infrastructure.

Yes, but "the class" isn't there yet. That's next semester. We are just trying to get through "standard liberal economics position". Many are struggling with this material. Dave_In_Norfolk is failing, btw, you may want to restrict his "talk economics" privileges, as he is making your side of the aisle look extremely dumb. Perhaps you can take him on as a student, as I am rapidly growing tired of having to teach him everything.

 

I would argue that your interpretation of Keynes is not 100% accurate(some quibbles...80% accurate). But, as I said, we are just getting through "What is Keynesian Economics?". Once I empower these liberal parrots to actually present their own side's position properly, then we will move on to Supply Side and Free Trade. We will need to work hard to remove the "invisible MSNBC hand" from some poster's rear ends. It is turning them into puppets, who are unable to think/argue for themselves. But, like I said, that's next semester.

 

Greece and Spain??? Wow, you really are ignorant. Comparing those Euro-states to our country? Go have another drink you jackwagon

You will get nothing from me until you answer my question, Mr. "I want to know more about Econ than the average bartender"(that's for Booster. ) trainee.

 

You want to know my opinion on deflation. You are a trainee, so you don't realize that is a dumb question. I am trying to educate you.

 

So, what is your unqualified(tried "context", didn't seem to work) opinion about purple, mint green, and oral sex?

[erynthered]

Where's the beef??

 

FBI says there will be a presser. Congress wants a hearing on this........Ya THINK???

 

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/08/solyndra-officials-made-numerous-trips-to-the-white-house-logs-show/

 

 

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/FBI-at-Solyndra-Headquarters-129455348.html

[....lybob]

My link

 

 

 

If you click on the link you'll get an idea of what American PV panel manufacturers are up against.

[pBills]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18795740

 

Yesterday,Solyndra, a solar technology company laid off all their workers (1,100) and declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This is the same place where Obama visited last May and said "Companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future" . The business got $535 MILLION in garenteed (sp) loans.

 

Everything Obama touches turns to s**t.

 

 

No what else sucks is the money tossed at Defense Companies who fail to get their projects even off the ground billions and billions wasted. And some say Defense spending can't be cut... yeah right.

[TPS]

My link

 

 

 

If you click on the link you'll get an idea of what American PV panel manufacturers are up against.

Nice piece. It's never so simple as "Obama (or Bush) sucks." I like the line "we need to re-learn how to make things in this country." For 30 years the US pursued the "race to the bottom" strategy, moving production to low wage countries. As the financial sector came to dominate industrial interests, the process quickened, as finance is all about short term profits.

 

Given the short-term focus, fewer real assets to finance (we're a service-based economy), and rising inequality, the economy is more prone to bubbles.

 

There is hope in that the lower dollar is creating a competitive advantage for many US firms. However, it's time to put tariffs on Chinese goods, especially if they won't let their currency float.

[DC Tom]

No what else sucks is the money tossed at Defense Companies who fail to get their projects even off the ground billions and billions wasted. And some say Defense spending can't be cut... yeah right.

 

Some of that's basic research through DARPA, when they fund ideas that are seriously "out there," in hopes that they'll get something interesting back. That's the public equivalent of "angel funding"...not a whole lot of money sunk into where they expect not a whole lot of return, but when they do get returns they tend to be pretty impressive. The bigger issue with defense spending is idiot programs like the JSF or FCV or LCS, where the project is so badly defined that they incur a $10B cost overrun when somebody field grade or above sneezes.

 

But of course, let's not forget that the single biggest defense expenditure - last I checked, about $125B annually - is on direct personnel costs (pay, training, benefits).

[pBills]

Some of that's basic research through DARPA, when they fund ideas that are seriously "out there," in hopes that they'll get something interesting back. That's the public equivalent of "angel funding"...not a whole lot of money sunk into where they expect not a whole lot of return, but when they do get returns they tend to be pretty impressive. The bigger issue with defense spending is idiot programs like the JSF or FCV or LCS, where the project is so badly defined that they incur a $10B cost overrun when somebody field grade or above sneezes.

 

But of course, let's not forget that the single biggest defense expenditure - last I checked, about $125B annually - is on direct personnel costs (pay, training, benefits).

 

 

True. For me the wasteful spending is on those "Angel" projects. Lets invest billions and pray it works. To me, it's ridiculous. Contractors are gaining way to much.