BDashe 0 #51 March 24, 2009 Quote not if it was the wars that bankrupted you in the first place You're avoiding his question/ So his point is- say that the war on all fronts was $1T spanning 6 years ($166B per year). If we can't afford that, how do we afford the stimulus that has been passed that will take less than 2 years to take effect? Also, remember it isnt like we just handed $166B per year to other countries. A very large portion of the war's budget does go right back to us- our troops' salaries/families and all the organizations that we buy most of our military equipment, machines, supplies, security teams (blackwater), and manufactured goods from are from the USA. Anyway, the question is if $166B annually 'bankrupt' us, how do we afford $500B-$1T?So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #52 March 24, 2009 Quote Anyway, the question is if $166B annually 'bankrupt' us, how do we afford $500B-$1T? The key difference is that Iraq was optional, bailing out AIG (and its 73M customers) was not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #53 March 24, 2009 That is a very fair argument, and I'll be the first to tell you Im not an Iraq war fan. I'll also agree (which this does contradict some of my previous posts ) that AIG needed to be bailed out. But AIG was $187B of $1T+. I'd say (and yeah, I am just picking a number) but I think a conservative estimate would be half the bailout(s) could be considered optional and not necessary. That's what us fiscal righties are p*ssed about. It is almost an entire duration of Iraq war in one year of extra unnecessary fluff coming from our pockets. And the question still remains- how is that spending justified if, as dreamy said, the $166B annually bankrupt us? If 1/3 of the quantity of NECESSARY spending doomed us, how can we AFFORD 3x that amount? Let alone the reality of what was voted to be spent: how do we afford over 6x the amount?So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 March 24, 2009 Quote And the question still remains- how is that spending justified if, as dreamy said, the $166B annually bankrupt us? If 1/3 of the quantity of NECESSARY spending doomed us, how can we AFFORD 3x that amount? Let alone the reality of what was voted to be spent: how do we afford over 6x the amount? The argument is that now, we don't have a choice. It's do it, or suffer even more. Unfortunately, you never have complete information and even hindsight isn't clear. Certainly the Iraqi war could be afforded, but the debt adds up. Better to have either left after Saddam was captured, or not gone at all. The costs of staying there have been great, not just in $$ but in the opportunity costs of using a considerable portion of our projectable force there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #55 March 24, 2009 Quote Certainly the Iraqi war could be afforded, but the debt adds up. Better to have either left after Saddam was captured, or not gone at all. The costs of staying there have been great, not just in $$ but in the opportunity costs of using a considerable portion of our projectable force there. Fair enough, but then would you argue that every dime of this stimulus is necessary? like being in afghanistan=necessary, iraq=not, AIG= necessary, but over 800 billion more??? I mean a trillion dollars? that is a fanicful term it is so big. These law makers have no clue they kind of cash they are throwing around. they make a huge stink about 165M (which half has been given back already) in bonuses when they are sh*tting over 6,000x that amount of money all over the place. I agree, some of the stimulus, though it pains me to admit, was needed, but can you really justify a TRILLION in spending in ONE shot? How do we afford it?So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #56 March 24, 2009 Quote Quote not if it was the wars that bankrupted you in the first place You're avoiding his question/ So his point is- say that the war on all fronts was $1T spanning 6 years ($166B per year). If we can't afford that, how do we afford the stimulus that has been passed that will take less than 2 years to take effect? Also, remember it isnt like we just handed $166B per year to other countries. A very large portion of the war's budget does go right back to us- our troops' salaries/families and all the organizations that we buy most of our military equipment, machines, supplies, security teams (blackwater), and manufactured goods from are from the USA. Anyway, the question is if $166B annually 'bankrupt' us, how do we afford $500B-$1T? the wars cost a lot more than the basic figures you're quoting is the first thing. the vietnam war had an enormous drag on the us economy. and i'm not sure you can afford the extra 'restart' money - especially as its not being placed into the right economic hands stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #57 March 24, 2009 Quote Fair enough, but then would you argue that every dime of this stimulus is necessary? l No, wouldn't even pretend to try. I'd venture it's about 1/3 pork. Bear in mind that at least some of the money should come back, and spending money on infrastructure is usually a good thing for recessions. The worst spending is any that is used by local governments for ongoing expenses, rather than one off capital improvements. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #58 March 26, 2009 might be some offshore money here... QuoteMore Transparency Needed So, we need to know about the claims AIG and others on Wall Street are paying out from taxpayer funds. Who made these derivative trades? Did they own the underlying assets or not? Did the parties that received money from the taxpayers write sham contracts to create shares to sell and then naked short sell securities they didn't own into the U.S. markets? Is AIG paying on "losses" for which no claims have yet been made? Shouldn't Congress, the Fed -- which is overseeing AIG -- and law enforcement agencies be investigating these SPEs and the money they received? Shouldn't they investigate whether it was obtained illegally? What if there are trillions of dollars in the special purpose entities that have been hidden for the benefit of a powerful few? Should the U.S. taxpayer come to the aid of the largest U.S. banks and brokerages that created these fancy off-balance-sheet financial instruments without full disclosure to at least one government agency of the monies in SPE accounts? How can Congress make intelligent regulation without understanding the scope of the problem and the trading techniques they are trying to regulate, which took down AIG and are destroying the economy -- especially the sham transactions designed for the purpose of creating shares of publicly traded companies? Since Congress is so focused on Wall Street salaries and bonuses that compensate obscenely paid Wall Street executives, shouldn't it be asking if these titans of business have reaped financial rewards through the use of SPEs? Beyond that, were offshore SPEs used to avoid taxes or hide improper gains? Why should we pay anything for the casino gambling debt? If there were illegal profits made on derivatives transactions that created sham shares sold into the marketplace, we should claw back that money, which could amount to a lot more than the bonuses paid to AIG officials. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/133228/the_real_aig_scandal%3A_how_the_game_is_rigged_at_wall_street%27s_casino/?page=entirestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #59 March 28, 2009 QuoteQuite honestly, the best reason to oppose foreign adventures of the type the US is now engaged in is that they are extremely expensive, and we don't have the money to spend on them. What they're spending the money on is a lot less important to me than the fact that my kids are going to end up having to pay off the loan--long after the current decision makers are retired. Not to worry - your kids couldn't pay off the debt if they wanted to. FWIW, the condition in which we find ourselves makes the Weimar Republic look like a model of economic stability, and we will soon look back to Germany ca. 1923 as "the good old days." All that has to happen is for someone to note that the Emperor's new suit needs ironing, and the whole thing will unravel. The dollar has less backing it than cheap wallpaper, and when other countries cease to accept it, things will get interesting. We will become self-sufficient (after a fashion) pretty much over night. We will have to make do with 25% of the oil consumption that we now enjoy. We will have to find American made products, from shoes and clothing to electronic components, or do without. Upon the collapse of their currency, in Germany very many people starved. Hungary was no picnic, either. Yugoslavia took a thumping, but did a lot better than we will. Zimbabwe simply imploded. A good bit of background may be found here. In any event, enjoy yourself - it's later than you think. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
