Utopia Talk / Politics / rolands $4 Trillion Wars

Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 03:36:47 roland - That didn't affect your support of a $4 trillion dollars wars... Can you give me a breakdown on those expenditures?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 03:53:55 roland - *if you want to *CONTINUE*, please *CONTINUE* that in *THOSE* threads. * Well?
hoER Member	Tue Aug 25 03:54:44 He said if YOU want to. Not HE wants to.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 03:58:24 So in other words he told another huge great big fat lie he is not able to back up. Guess we should all just start calling him liar.
hoER Member	Tue Aug 25 04:00:29 In other words, no. You just did when you accused him of lying though.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 04:02:59 Hey, all I want is a breakdown on the costs of the wars that add up to $4 Tillion. Shouldn't be too hard if it is the truth. Is it?
hoER Member	Tue Aug 25 04:05:11 So where did he lie?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 04:08:55 "a $4 trillion dollars wars..." I don't believe the two wars combined cost anywhere near that amount. I want to see his numbers. How did he arrive at that amount. He made the claim, show me or he should admit he did not tell the truth.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Aug 25 04:23:56 http://costofwar.com/
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 04:26:44 Thanks NeverWoods. Assuming that is correct, and I will take your word that it is a valid link, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that roland posted a lie.
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 04:27:41 "Well? " Stop thinking everyone is like you who glue yourself to the screen for every remaining seconds of your life, HR. No one do that, if you can't stop wetting yourself, get another hobby. "Can you give me a breakdown on those expenditures? " The figure is $3 trillion, not 4 trillion as I remembered it incorrectly. Stiglitz & Bilmes (2006) estimated the cost of the wars if we have started to draw down our troop level in 2006 in the following link. http://www.epsusa.org/events/aea2006papers/stiglitz.pdf But we didn't withdrew in 2006, instead, we expanded the troop level with the surge strategy. Stiglitz & Bilmes (2008) reviewed the cost and estimated the cost to be about $3 trillion. http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7528/76863288.jpg You can also look up the book on Google http://books.google.com/books?id=kh4El0tzIuYC&dq=Stiglitz+trillion+paper&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Nimatzo Member	Tue Aug 25 04:28:14 So it's 900 billion.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 04:42:57 roland, that is an *ESTIMATE* put forward by Harvard University. Give me the government number that prove your $3 Trillion claim, they are available. It does not wash. Waiting patiently.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 04:44:01 BTW, Harvard is a hotbed of liberal thinking.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Aug 25 04:45:49 WASHINGTON â?? At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government. Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 04:45:59 "roland, that is an *ESTIMATE* put forward by Harvard University. " What's the matter, they are an estimate based on sources from various government agencies. Just like the 1 trillion dollar healthcare plan cost is an *ESTIMATE* done by the CBO. So, one estimation is Ok, and another estimation is not?
NeverWoods Member	Tue Aug 25 04:46:26 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 04:54:05 "BTW, Harvard is a hotbed of liberal thinking. " Lol, that's not an argument, you can argue the CBO are full of liberal thinking academics too.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 04:57:10 roland, "Give me the government number that prove your $3 Trillion claim, they are available." I'm not interested in the final cost, your original statement clearly indicates costs to date. "That didn't affect your support of a $4 trillion dollars wars on terror." Neverwoods, on the link to the CBO in the ny times article, what page are their numbers on. http://top...fice/index.html?inline=nyt-org
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 04:58:36 roland, there is a simple solution. Give me the government figures to date.
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 05:04:40 "I'm not interested in the final cost, your original statement clearly indicates costs to date." No, my original statement did not indicate which cost I am referring to. The fact I am talking about the trillions would indicated that I was talking about the total cost for anyone with a brain. And even if you are unsure about it, you should ask.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 05:15:40 In other words your claim is bogus. Costs to date = less than $1 Trillion for both wars. Troops in Iraq have pulled out of the cities and their numbers will be reduced by nearly 2.3 in the coming months. To reach a cost of even $3 Trillions the war in Afghanistan will have to continue for many years. Been fun, as usual.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Aug 25 05:18:28 "Getting at the true cost of the war is difficult. Expenses like a troop increase were paid from the base defense budget, not war bills."
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 05:23:03 "In other words your claim is bogus. " My claim is bogus if I actually make such claim, but I did not. You lying piece of shxt. "To reach a cost of even $3 Trillions the war in Afghanistan will have to continue for many years. " The $3 trillion included interest on the money we borrowed, medical support for the vets, long term military present or foreign aids, etc... But I see you have surrendered and reverted to cover your ear and shout "I'm not listening". So, I wont bother to go further.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 05:23:35 I doubt seriously he will ever be able to prove $3 Trillion. If he comes up with what he considers proof, I will be glad to look at it.
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 05:26:12 "I doubt seriously he will ever be able to prove $3 Trillion. If he comes up with what he considers proof, I will be glad to look at it. " Hell, you cant prove the health care bill is $1 trillion too, why are you going around and use this figure?
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 07:11:17 This is exactly what I am talking about HR.
Rugian Member	Tue Aug 25 07:15:18 Hot Rod Member Tue Aug 25 04:58:36 "roland, there is a simple solution. Give me the government figures to date." Thanks to dipshits like you who think that "open government" is dangerous and that we need a top secret government that can do whatever it wants without us knowing, all in the name of protecting us from some ragis, we don't HAVE the full government figures and are forced to deal with estimates as the best alternative. Asshole..
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 07:41:36 Hot Rod, For sake of this 'argument', read this; http://www.../10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf Everything is dealt in approximates or estimates, including by the government.
Fed Bureau Of Utopia Member	Tue Aug 25 14:57:32 People you forget, when you write in small or lower case letters. HR has a difficult time undrestanding. When responding and how annoying it may be, but you must write in CAPS.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:07:08 Hot Rod, did you find time to peruse the link I've provided?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 21:09:40 The type is so small I can't read it.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:11:06 Oh ignore that crap. Did you read the link?
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:11:10 Oh ignore that crap. Did you read the link?
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:18:05 No not quite. I am close. But in all seriosness did you read the content of the link that I submitted?
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 21:21:56 Come on, the CBO is a liberal organisation, who publish stuff that no one can see even with a magnifier.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 21:25:55 I am getting sick and tired of chewing my cud twice for you people. Asked and answered. Now please go away.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:26:07 He wanted answers. That link has the answers. But he won't answer my question if he has read it or not. Or if he is going to, so, what else to expect. Is he giving up on this?
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:28:34 Hot Rod, you are aware you can zoom on it. Adobe Reader has that nifty little feature. Are you really going to resort to shit pettiness?
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:29:28 And you played the victim card, as usual.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 21:36:19 So it does. In another 8 years it seems we will be approaching the $3 Trillion mark quoted by roland. Obviously that is what he intended, that in 8 or 9 years the total would ber the $3 Trillion he quoted. Silly me for not knowing that is what he had in the back of his mind. "Including both funding provided through 2007 and projected funding under the two illustrative scenarios, total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017 (see Table 1).1" Thank you and goodnight.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:41:09 Now, was that so bad?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 21:42:42 Actually it was kind of cool that you helped me prove that roland is the fool. Thanks again.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:46:05 ....Wow. Do you listen to yourself sometimes?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 21:47:26 Wow, do you ever read a thread before jumping into it?
mexicantornado Member	Tue Aug 25 21:48:26 3 trillion huh roland? Pretty sure Iraq & Afghanistan have been 100 billion dollar wars for the past 8 years. Would love to know how we somehow have spent 3 trillion dollars without congress allowing it.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:54:43 "Wow, do you ever read a thread before jumping into it?" I know the whole premise behind this thread Hot Rod. You wanted it broken down for you. It was broken down. It also went on to show that the government uses estimates as did Roland used in which you adamantly disagreed and emphatically railed on him. Since the link was something of an official account on approximates and estimates conduct by the government. (The government that you are so untrusting of might I add) showed that indeed this war is costing us into the trillians based upon estimates. Roland based his estimates from scholars and the CBO conducted their own research. Right now it is hard to say who is going to be correct with their assessment. But it is a safe bet to say that it will be a few trillian dollars. Which was the concept behind Roland's concept. Just accept your failures and depart.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 21:56:03 >>Which was the concept behind Roland's comment.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 22:11:31 Read it again. rolands estimates from Harvard said it had already cost $3 Trillions, "But we didn't withdrew in 2006, instead, we expanded the troop level with the surge strategy. Stiglitz & Bilmes (2008) reviewed the cost and estimated the cost to be about $3 trillion." The CBO estimate from your link says it will not approach that number until 2017. Now you are trying to weasel out of your own link. Let's face it, you lose. And you claim I am a weasel. Go away Byron or delude or whatever you are calling yourself today. You are wasting my time.
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 22:26:02 "rolands estimates from Harvard said it had already cost $3 Trillions" Where did I say "already cost"?? Your word, not mine.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 22:29:44 "Stiglitz & Bilmes (2008) reviewed the cost and estimated the cost to be about $3 trillion."" Obviously they made that estimare last year.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 22:29:59 "Read it again. rolands estimates from Harvard said it had already cost $3 Trillions, "But we didn't withdrew in 2006, instead, we expanded the troop level with the surge strategy. Stiglitz & Bilmes (2008) reviewed the cost and estimated the cost to be about $3 trillion." " Obviously you do not read as I suspected. From the link that I provided that you really didn't read, because if you had, you wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment. A Comparison of Cost-of-War Estimates A number of ESTIMATES of the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been performed by analysts working outside the government; those ESTIMATES are often HIGHER than CBOâ??s. For example, in 2006, two academic researchersâ??Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitzâ??ESTIMATED that the war in Iraq COULD cost several trillion dollars in present-value terms, including costs to the federal government as well as other economic costs outside the federal budget. CBO RESTRICTS ITS ESTIMATES of war costs to federal budgetary effects and HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO ESTIMATE the macroeconomic effects of the war. However, even within the confines of federal budgetary costs, CBOâ??s ESTIMATES DIFFER FROM those of Bilmes and Stiglitz. Emphasis mine. Take your time, read it over and over again for it to sink in. "Let's face it, you lose. And you claim I am a weasel." I never said you were weasel. Where did I say this? "Go away Byron or delude or whatever you are calling yourself today." I am not them. So don't even try to paint me as them because of your shortcomings of not understanding a simple concept about estimates. "You are wasting my time." You waste our time every time you resort to petty, childish antics that you apologized for but still continue you to do. I do not think you were sincere at all now. Fact it HR, you failed. You've got nothing. You didn't read the link, you made yet another wrong claim and you can't accept it.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 22:30:42 roland, you are obviously wrong this time. Let it go.
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 22:33:59 "Stiglitz & Bilmes (2008) reviewed the cost and estimated the cost to be about $3 trillion."" "Obviously they made that estimare last year. " And that figure is the estimation of the total cost of the two wars. I didn't say it is an estimation of the cost SO FAR. You had the assumption that I was talking about the cost SO FAR. So, that's your word, not mine.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 22:49:18 "roland, you are obviously wrong this time. Let it go. " Read the above post. Obviously you're wrong. Shut up.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 22:55:37 "CBO RESTRICTS ITS ESTIMATES of war costs to federal budgetary effects and HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO ESTIMATE the macroeconomic effects of the war." As do I. Obviously the Harvard numbers are wrong because they did not count the chocolate cake that G.I. Joe's Aunt Martha sent him. You take an erroneous statement by roland and turn it into an exercise in microeconomics. And then you have the audacity to say I'm picky about semantics and that I'm a hack. Go look at yourself in the mirror. Now for the last time. Please go away, you are wasting my time. And it is "microeconomics" not "macroeconomics."
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 23:02:42 "And it is "microeconomics" not "macroeconomics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomics Failed. Again. "As do I. Obviously the Harvard numbers are wrong because they did not count the chocolate cake that G.I. Joe's Aunt Martha sent him." Due to that fact that you want to demonstrate your wit, which isn't much. You are still obviously missing the point. And it would be futile to attempt to continue to show the error of your ways because you will still obviously be in denial of it. "You take an erroneous statement by roland and turn it into an exercise in microeconomics. And then you have the audacity to say I'm picky about semantics and that I'm a hack. Go look at yourself in the mirror. Now for the last time. Please go away, you are wasting my time" My point is that you're wrong. You are going to be forever wrong about this and this is a good time to stop talking. Macroeconomics is correct. You are a fool and you are really demonstrating on a high level right now.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 23:08:21 Btw, you started this thread about this subject and you lost in this thread about this subject. I suggest for you to apologize for wasting our time and apologize for being a jackass. ....Again.
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 23:09:33 "And it is "microeconomics" not "macroeconomics."" Lol, you are doing the same thing here, instead of changing my context about total cost, or cost up-to-date, you are changing the definition of an economic term to fit your argument. "Obviously the Harvard numbers are wrong because they did not count the chocolate cake that G.I. Joe's Aunt Martha sent him. " the Harvard numbers are wrong because of what??? Lol. Actually, the book published in 2008 has considered all these factors and put them in seperate catergories, and that allows you to look at the estimate figure without the macroeconomic factors, and it is still around 3 trillions.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 23:14:52 "is a branch of economics that deals with the performance, structure, and behavior of a national or regional economy as a whole..." I knew you were going to do that, you are so predictable. Notice it says, "a national or regional economy as a whole, while microeconomics is the branch of economics dealing with particular aspects of an economy... We have been discussing the effects of the wars on the economy. The wars do not effect the economy as a whole, it concerns a portion of the economy. Just what effect does the war on Iraq have on Yellowstone Park or Indian Affairs, or the water table we tap for fresh water? If you are not Byron or delude you certainly act like them. Not something to be proud of.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 23:19:21 "I knew you were going to do that, you are so predictable. Notice it says, "a national or regional economy as a whole, while microeconomics is the branch of economics dealing with particular aspects of an economy... We have been discussing the effects of the wars on the economy. The wars do not effect the economy as a whole, it concerns a portion of the economy. Just what effect does the war on Iraq have on Yellowstone Park or Indian Affairs, or the water table we tap for fresh water? " You are having a fit over a term that the CBO used. And you are going out of your way to say they were wrong for using it, where you have been praising the CBO assessment to use against Roland. I have to ask, do you not listen to yourself before you post? "If you are not Byron or delude you certainly act like them. Not something to be proud of. " Another attempt by you to take away from the topic at hand because you cannot accept the fact that you are wrong. I am not them, never claim to be them, nor implied that if I was 'acting like them' I would be 'proud of it'. Drop it. Just another sad, pathetic attempt by you because again, you are wrong.
Randal Graves Member	Tue Aug 25 23:23:02 Three simple words to end this and everyone can see but yourself, because of your 'pride'. You are wrong. I don't care if you make another longwinded post about whatever nonsense. You were already shown how you were wrong. All you are doing now is continuing to be fodder. So back to my lurking.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 23:31:01 So it did, I stand corrected.
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 23:42:22 WTF is this microeconomic BS? How is this relevant? Stiglitz & Bilmes (2008) considered a number of factors that contribute to the total cost of the wars. Operation cost up-to-date (or up-to-that point), future operations, future vet costs, social cost. marcoeconomic costs, interest. It does not consider microeconomics factors. If all these factors are combined, they estimated the war cost over 5 trillion dollars, about 3 if you discount the marcoeconomic factors. the CBO have said they are not going to include marcoeconomic cost in their model. and they come up with a figure about 1 to 2 trillion dollars. Obviously, the study is conducted in 2006, and things have changed since then. Such as the surge which should add more cost to their estimate. It would be fair to debate how much that would added to the estimate, but you are just going around in circle claiming things that did not happen.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Jan 31 05:56:15 Total Cost of Wars Since 2001 Every hour, taxpayers in United States are paying $8.36 million for Total Cost of Wars Since 2001. $1,813,770,463,370
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Jan 31 06:11:43 That is for Iraq and Afghanistan both.
Memory Lane Member	Wed Jan 31 06:12:35 I remember Hot Rod is always been a champion of irrelevancy. I drink and remember things.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Jan 31 06:17:57 Then you should be able to remember roland claiming that the two wars cost $4 Trillion.
Memory Lane Member	Wed Jan 31 06:20:10 I remember hot rod can't even read the link nor follow logical arguments and him conceding in the same thread. I drink and remember things.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: