Community > Posts By > northrn_yanke

 
no photo
Thu 03/06/08 04:34 PM



U.S. direct spending on the war in Iraq already has surpassed the upper bound of Lindsey's upper bound, and most economists attribute billions more in indirect costs to the war effort. Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/


so one estimate puts the total up to 2 trillion...which implies the others are lower than 2 trillion...I thought your thread stated the number was 3 trillion...sounds like there's a little contradiction here...don't you agree?
It all depends on if you factor in the interest on the money borrowed, if you simply submit a bill for equpment and supplies that is not the true cost of the war, you need to factor in the high gas prices due to the instability in the middle east and the interest on the money borrowed and the drag that has on the economy. face the music yankee this war has been an total disaster for america all accross the board


they say total...but you say it all depends...I go with them and as I said the numbers are all juggled to say what they want them to say....face the music madman....your thread is a total disaster for all across this forum...laugh

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 04:30 PM

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts the final figure at a staggering $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops. Additional costs include a negative impact from the rising cost of oil and added interest on the national debt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/page/2/


madman...now I am even more confused....this Stiglitz is the same Stiglitz who in the op article that the cost was 3 trillion?..so how come in this article he puts the final figure at $1 trillion to $2 trillion....why the contradiction..??noway

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 04:24 PM


U.S. direct spending on the war in Iraq already has surpassed the upper bound of Lindsey's upper bound, and most economists attribute billions more in indirect costs to the war effort. Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/


so one estimate puts the total up to 2 trillion...which implies the others are lower than 2 trillion...I thought your thread stated the number was 3 trillion...sounds like there's a little contradiction here...don't you agree?


madamn...can I get an answer to this one....

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 04:22 PM

U.S. direct spending on the war in Iraq already has surpassed the upper bound of Lindsey's upper bound, and most economists attribute billions more in indirect costs to the war effort. Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/


so one estimate puts the total up to 2 trillion...which implies the others are lower than 2 trillion...I thought your thread stated the number was 3 trillion...sounds like there's a little contradiction here...don't you agree?

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 04:18 PM

oh so it is a fact then..I'll be glad to read the link to those facts...


where are your links?


t's funny. i find when someone lacks a point and feels threatened, they often duck out. which really, is what you do all the time

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 04:13 PM

and you know this to be a fact?...laugh


do you pay attention to the economy or do you just go around harping on people for ctrl+c while screaming rhetoric?


oh so it is a fact then..I'll be glad to read the link to those facts...

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 04:12 PM
I find the men to be credible and the statements accurate. to find the true cost of the war you need to factor in the interest on the money we borrowed to wage it. that interest will need to be paid untill it is paid off........what part of economics do you not understand?


you find the men to be credible?...Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes...I think Linda is a woman...

and even if they were both men yopu finding them credible is laughable.....what credentials do you have for that finding to have any credibility?

and what part of economics do you understand?


no photo
Thu 03/06/08 04:04 PM
Edited by northrn_yanke on Thu 03/06/08 04:06 PM

thank you toasted.I'm afraid i am not as knowledgable as most in this section so I appreciate answers to my questions.thanx again.


one thing you have to keep in mind is the wizardry of accountants...two opposing sides using the same numbers will come out with totally different results, you can't believe either side...until the numbers are audited...

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 04:01 PM





why don't you contribute to the conversation? why even post if you're just going to say "YOU COPPIED AND PASTED!! HOW DARE YOU!!??!"


you mean like you are huh....

ok..we all know number can be juggled to say just about whatever you want....this is from a left wing liberal group so of course the numbers are going to be twisted in the liberals favor..

you'll agree with me that during Clinton's term there was no war going on....so where is the 3 trillion dollars from his term?
Iam not sure yanker are you trying to say this war is of minor economic impact to america? when clinton left office the defecit was shrinking so that is were the money went. I cannot belive you would even attempt to make an argument. The facts are this....Our countries future is in hock forever and if you love the country as you claim you should be outraged and if your not outraged your liveing in self delusion or not paying attention



what facts are you talking about?...if you beleive those numbers to be facts you're farther gone than I thought....noway
those numbers are fine, they factor inthe inmterest on the money we borrowed to wage this war and the costs of aiding the crippled men and women who fought it, te yalso factor in the gas prices that have tripled as a cost of the war that all seems reasonable to me. what part do you find unreasonable?


those number are according to who...your not that lame to think that numbers can't be juggled to suit your purpose huh...oh and have these numbers been verified by an audit? You do know what an audit is....

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:59 PM

maybe not but i was taught that historically the US economy goes up during war time..why is this war different?For the record I am anti-war.


this war is different because of the way the economy was handled. our government knowingly encuranged spending and the building of debt. they thought in short term, not long term.


and you know this to be a fact?...laugh

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:57 PM
Edited by northrn_yanke on Thu 03/06/08 03:58 PM

with all those nuclear missles we have I cant imagine anyone actualy atacking america and starting armageden. That may be appealing to the right wing christian sect but the rest of the world doesnt think its such a good idea


have you forgotten 9/11....and while we are on that subject what do your accountants say on the cost of 9/11?....

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:53 PM



why don't you contribute to the conversation? why even post if you're just going to say "YOU COPPIED AND PASTED!! HOW DARE YOU!!??!"


you mean like you are huh....

ok..we all know number can be juggled to say just about whatever you want....this is from a left wing liberal group so of course the numbers are going to be twisted in the liberals favor..

you'll agree with me that during Clinton's term there was no war going on....so where is the 3 trillion dollars from his term?
Iam not sure yanker are you trying to say this war is of minor economic impact to america? when clinton left office the defecit was shrinking so that is were the money went. I cannot belive you would even attempt to make an argument. The facts are this....Our countries future is in hock forever and if you love the country as you claim you should be outraged and if your not outraged your liveing in self delusion or not paying attention



what facts are you talking about?...if you beleive those numbers to be facts you're farther gone than I thought....noway

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:47 PM
Edited by northrn_yanke on Thu 03/06/08 03:48 PM

you are not a ...... small penised little man like others may think.

i guess not!! did you see the size of that sombrero laugh


the addad!cktome operation was successful...drinker

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:45 PM

why don't you contribute to the conversation? why even post if you're just going to say "YOU COPPIED AND PASTED!! HOW DARE YOU!!??!"


you mean like you are huh....

ok..we all know number can be juggled to say just about whatever you want....this is from a left wing liberal group so of course the numbers are going to be twisted in the liberals favor..

you'll agree with me that during Clinton's term there was no war going on....so where is the 3 trillion dollars from his term?

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:40 PM
madman...have you been drinking?...laugh laugh

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:36 PM
Edited by northrn_yanke on Thu 03/06/08 03:38 PM
.

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:34 PM
another one of madman's golden finds...hot from the presses of the world renowned The Smirking Chimp...yawn

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:26 PM


Do they not use surge shut off valves so if a pipe does break the gas is shut off....


Much of our infrastructure here is pretty antiquated. I remember a gas line explosion up in Washington State in the 90's that laid waste to a pretty large area.
Our bridges are failing... Our power grid overwhelmed... Fail safes ignored. New technology passed by.

Yesterdays explosion, unfortunately, is par for the course.


up here we have a problem with the waterlines..they break in cold weather and the mechanical shut off valves half the time don't work...the infrastructure in a lot of the major cities have passed their life expectancy but the cost to replace is so high the cities can't afford it so they just keep making repairs as needed

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:23 PM

I don't believe they do Yankee. The only place I have seen that type of valve is the internal valve on Propane Tank Trailers.


we used them on fuel lines and oil lines on aircraft....one of the valves even made it onto one of my cars..glasses

no photo
Thu 03/06/08 03:20 PM




I would much rather have someone like McCain with experiences than Obama who has no knowledge of the military and would have to blindly rely on someone else to tell him what to do...noway

Bush does that now as he has no knowledge since he sisestepped military service.


actually Bush completed his military service...the liberals started that rumor about Bush...


http://www.factcheck.org/new_evidence_supports_bush_military_service_mostly.html

here is a link for you.We are kinda ,sorta both right laugh


I saw that link too...I have to think that Bush probably did finish his military service...it's not like he was looking to be president at some time so the records were not that important to him. I wonder what other records from others who served with him would look like.

1 2 5 6 7 9 11 12 13 24 25