Iraq or the Economy?--Ron Paul

[ZenMachine]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Wow...are you serious?

Answer: Medicare and social security.

Those programs have historically cost and will cost more than the Iraq war ever will. These programs--as well as other massive entitlement programs--are named by the comptroller general of the United States, David Walker, as the primary reasons that the US may go bankrupt one day. The Iraq war is NOT mentioned.

YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy

"You could eliminate.....the entire pentagon budget and the long-range financial projections BARELY CHANGE."

Sorry to burst your bubble,

Frank

I was wondering how long it would take for the fallacy-ridden spending fantasies of the neoconservative wing of the GOP would rear their collective ugly head. How convenient that one can take a set of jerrymandered statistics that do everything possible to shift around the cost of defense spending and the Iraq war to make it seem as if it not as expensive as it really is. One thing downplayed in the cost of war is the money that will eventually have to be spend to replace all the equipment being worn down currently whether it be tanks, HumVs or transport aircraft. This article from 2006 covers some of this:
Congressional analysis puts cost of Iraq war at $2 billion a week - The Boston Globe

The other thing misrepresented by the figures you are citing is the way in which social security works, it currently runs a surplus and that money is used to buy bonds to pay down the national debt, so when the treasury pays back that money including interest to the social security fund they count that as a "cost" of social security, way bumping up the actual cost. You should read this article on social security:
Congressional analysis puts cost of Iraq war at $2 billion a week - The Boston Globe

Another cost conveniently glossed over when neocons conjure figures about the war is the cost of treating returning veterans for the rest of their lives. 40% of the veterans from the first gulf war currently receive disability pay, it lasted 4 weeks, what do you think the costs will amount to from this war?

Another cost of the war, the rise in the price of oil driven by uncertainty about the supply in the middle east. Have oil prices increased since the invasion of Iraq? Easy to answer, yes.

As to medicare, you're are not going to get any argument from me on that one, although it is a barely even with discretionary defense spending, when you add in supplemental defense spending is far less of an outlay. So lets follow the logic to the end on this one, medicare is extremely expensive, yet we have a privatized system in which healthcare is more expensive than any other developed nation on the globe, yet patient satisfaction is lower than much of Europe and wait times are on par with socialist france and not much ahead of nationalized UK. Does the fact that all the uninsured are not taking advantage of preventive care, and only go to emergency rooms for high ticket items have anything to do with our soaring costs???

[Delija]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Because someone asked the following question to judge after he said that there are many federal programs that cost more than the war...



...and I answered it.

Frank

Come on Frank....you can do better than that (or do I over-estimate you?)

The question was a bit more than "what costs more than the war".

Before even getting into why it was more complex, you cannot compare an ongoing program designed to run virtually forever with a war - a "plan" with a limited time and limited budget....particularly one that we were told would be swift and cheap. (Or do you think that wars can be and should be perpetual?).

Anyway, to get to the nitty gritty....it was ZenMachine that asked the question, and it was a two part question.

Here it is:

Originally Posted by ZenMachine

Judge, would you mind naming one of those federal programs that is costing taxpayers more than the war? You neglected to do that in your last posts. Also, what is Iraq going to yield in the future that will benefit us so?

Notice the second part of the question? The part that actually matters?

It was about ROI (return on investment).

You are a business man (I assume now that you talked about needing to replace your employees - or something like that).

So you should know that the raw dollar amount of what you spend is not a stand alone issue of importance in any business decision.....(or, presumably any govt. decision....especially a govt. run by business people, not sex crazed lawyers like we replaced for "better and smaller and more efficient "can do" government...as sold to us by the BushCo's advertising division).


What matters is two things...


"CAN WE AFFORD THE INVESTMENT?"

And "WHAT WILL THIS INVESTMENT RETURN TO US?"

So ......

Any answers?

Or are you going to let yourself off the hook by using an answer that is irrelevant to the question?

You certainly would not accept such a non-answer if it was YOU posing the question.

You jumped right in with an answer that isn't an answer at all.

Is that all you've got?

You can, of course, concede that this is just a "bad plan".

So?


Peace,
D.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by ZenMachine

I was wondering how long it would take ...(edit)......

I understand that you were being facetious when you say you were "wondering". But really, never a need to wonder here. It's a good thing it's more entertaining to know exactly who will say what than it is dull to hear so much canned repetition. All in all......the fun factor outweighs the dullness.

And BTW, as usual, great post!

And sorry I was watching the baseball game and did not see your last post before I hit the submit button on my prior post. Second time I've done that tonight. I am a baseball junkie....I can't look away from my beloved Mets.


Peace,
D.

[Frenchy]

Let's take a look at what you wrote, Frank...

Most everyone, including Frenchy, agreed that etta's blatant plagiarism was wrong. If you want to be the only one who defends her, go right ahead.

And then you quoted...

Originally Posted by Frenchy
...She has apologized for this...

And again...

Originally Posted by Frenchy
She apologized!

Where did I say that I agreed or disagreed with Etta's original "cut n' paste"? I stated that she apoligised...Period. A bigger man would have taken the apology in good faith and accepted it. But instead, you prefer to use it to suit your agenda.
You have this thing about dragging up old posts, when you feel that you need to attack or belittle someone. You may not agree, but it is what it is, Frank...It is what it is.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Let's take a look .....

And then you quoted...



And again...

Good post Steve...nothing really to add here. (Never seems to have stopped me before though....LOL).

Just was bored and sleepless, so ended up taking my shiny new "plagiarized" signature for a little test drive. Hope you don't mind.

I guess it isn't really plagiarism if I give credit, is it?....but we have some very strict rules around here .....so it's always thin ice when our self appointed local fuzz feels the need to prosecute.

Kind of like the bad guy in "Gladiator". Thumbs up, thumbs down....all depends on the mood or....that "agenda" stuff you mentioned.



It's kind of interesting that the IRS, like Abu Grahb and Gitmo also uses a "guilty until proved innocent" (justice) system. DO NOT SCREW WITH THE IRS!!!. (Or try to set your shoes on fire in an airplane).

And most definitely do not get yourself into Frank's sights by contradicting yourself on something you may have said three years ago (I tried to plead "Change of mind" on a Rizzo Arrest on just such a violation once.....would have gotten off easier with a temporary insanity plea. (Or permanent.....Hannibal D. Lechter....LOL).

I love this place...really! I mean where else can I have gone last week fo find out right away that SC Justice Kennedy is a 'traitor" for using the Constitution as a guideline in his most recently presented decision for the majority (on just such an issue).

The Constitution? Seriously? Wow...how 18th century can you get?

Lucky for us we have a brilliant legal mind in the Oval Office for another 6 or 7 months to protect us from this kind of insanity. IIRC, it was the very same day I learned about Kennedy's treason here that I also heard that our Decider in Chief's comment in regard to this most recent abuse of the Constitution was "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it". Praise the Lord we are at least getting the good old "college try" (appropriately enough from a former college chearleader) to protect us from the Constitution!

Anyway Frenchy.....again, thanks for the line (used in my sig....I'll give it back as soon as you need it).

Peace,
D.

[Frenchy]

Use it at your discretion, D...No copyright infringement as fas as I can see, but we'll let Frank make that determination.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Use it at your discretion, D

Thanks for your kind generosity Frenchy. I never really doubted it for a moment. My concerns were obviously elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

but we'll let Frank make that determination.

Ah....the true source of my concerns. High anxiety!! (Mel Brooks, 1977)
YouTube - High Anxiety-WareWolf Sceen

Going by the time of Frank's earliest posts just yesterday, I'd guess about 8:30 am looks likely for my arraignment. (amazing that I had to scroll through about 400 posts just from yesterday alone to find the time of his "wake-up" post).

I'm hoping that turning myself in peacefully may spare me the discomfort and embarrassment of being handcuffed. If that doesn't work, maybe I can at least get cuffed in front rather than behind my back....not much, but something.

Tried calling my lawyer, the ever incompetent Vinnie Goombatz -he was not encouraging. Mentioned something about the possibility of being charged under RICO statutes..... (Which leads me to believe that Frank is indeed related to the Frank Rizzo of Philadelphia law enforcement fame).

"I'm gonna make Attila the Hun look like a faggot after this election" - Philadelphia Police Commissioner Frank Rizzo during mayoral campaign..., 1971. Frank Rizzo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I was foolish. Should have sent Etta a PM right away to ask her what moves she made to remain free (or at least in a "country club" type prison...I assume this since she seems to have liberal access to the internet).

Peace,
D.

[Judge]

First cheesy net sites as a reference, now the Boston Globe - what next - National Enquirer?

Look at the article - versus the headline. The GAO report cites the expenses in both Afstan and Iraq, while the title appropriates both expenses solely to the account of iraq. That's not reporting, that's propaganda.

Figures coming from you. Go find some real sources then get back to us.

Originally Posted by ZenMachine

I was wondering how long it would take for the fallacy-ridden spending fantasies of the neoconservative wing of the GOP would rear their collective ugly head. How convenient that one can take a set of jerrymandered statistics that do everything possible to shift around the cost of defense spending and the Iraq war to make it seem as if it not as expensive as it really is. One thing downplayed in the cost of war is the money that will eventually have to be spend to replace all the equipment being worn down currently whether it be tanks, HumVs or transport aircraft. This article from 2006 covers some of this:
Congressional analysis puts cost of Iraq war at $2 billion a week - The Boston Globe

The other thing misrepresented by the figures you are citing is the way in which social security works, it currently runs a surplus and that money is used to buy bonds to pay down the national debt, so when the treasury pays back that money including interest to the social security fund they count that as a "cost" of social security, way bumping up the actual cost. You should read this article on social security:
Congressional analysis puts cost of Iraq war at $2 billion a week - The Boston Globe

Another cost conveniently glossed over when neocons conjure figures about the war is the cost of treating returning veterans for the rest of their lives. 40% of the veterans from the first gulf war currently receive disability pay, it lasted 4 weeks, what do you think the costs will amount to from this war?

Another cost of the war, the rise in the price of oil driven by uncertainty about the supply in the middle east. Have oil prices increased since the invasion of Iraq? Easy to answer, yes.

As to medicare, you're are not going to get any argument from me on that one, although it is a barely even with discretionary defense spending, when you add in supplemental defense spending is far less of an outlay. So lets follow the logic to the end on this one, medicare is extremely expensive, yet we have a privatized system in which healthcare is more expensive than any other developed nation on the globe, yet patient satisfaction is lower than much of Europe and wait times are on par with socialist france and not much ahead of nationalized UK. Does the fact that all the uninsured are not taking advantage of preventive care, and only go to emergency rooms for high ticket items have anything to do with our soaring costs???

[Judge]

Nice ad homenim etta...

And yes, by any objective standard, this war is cheap. Compare it to Vietnam, Korea, WWII or WWI and get back to me.

And yes, paul is a verifable idiot, if the word has any meaning.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

No, he is not an idiot. You are, if you think this war is cheap!

[Judge]

I figured you wouldn't... Seeing as neither can rationally respond to the issue or present facts in defense of your position, you're left with little else but to violate the rules of the board.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I see nothing wrong with his statement.