ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

What Is the War Going to Cost Us?

5/9/2003 1:58 PM
Ian Anderson	What Is the War Going to Cost Us? Makes interesting reading whatever your stance... http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15807 ... Ian

5/9/2003 3:18 PM
Dai Hirokawa	Ian you whining cynical pessimistic communist elitist liberal anti-American... Actually, here's another piece. Might be easier to digest (video). http://pbs-newshour.virage.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=template.html&query=+ClipCategory%3Amiddle+east&keywords=&category=middle+east&submit=Search Go down 'til you see "Debts of a Dictator"

5/9/2003 3:40 PM
LFOscalator	Very good article. Interesting to note that the high estimate is $500 billion. As I have said before, we have no true conservatives left in this country. All Republicans in my opinion are liberals. All they want to do is spend more money. And as most librals do, they want more government intervention as well. Our meddling in Iraq is nothing more than government intervention that will cost taxpayers lot's of money. We are not protecting American interests there. We are protecting Iraqi interests. Why should US taxpayers have to foot the bill for this garbage. Pathetic, if you ask me. Where is Pat Buchanan when you need him. LFO

5/9/2003 3:40 PM

LFOscalator

Very good article. Interesting to note that the high estimate is $500 billion.

As I have said before, we have no true conservatives left in this country. All Republicans in my opinion are liberals. All they want to do is spend more money. And as most librals do, they want more government intervention as well. Our meddling in Iraq is nothing more than government intervention that will cost taxpayers lot's of money. We are not protecting American interests there. We are protecting Iraqi interests. Why should US taxpayers have to foot the bill for this garbage.

Pathetic, if you ask me.

Where is Pat Buchanan when you need him.

LFO

5/9/2003 4:29 PM
Mark Hammer	In all fairness, government is not all about saving money. Modern government is there to do the right thing, no matter what it costs, but hopefully do it with the least human and fiscal cost. I'm fairly certain that, following 09/11, your attitude was not one of "Why should my tax dollars go to rebuilding downtown New York when I don't live there?". You looked at the situation, realized those people needed you, and didn't ask about the tab until MUCH further down the line. Same goes when a hurricane wipes out a town, or when a drought wipes out a crop. If Iraq was the "right thing to do" and the cost was low (and I'm not just talking tax dollars here), then go for it. That's pretty much what was done by the current administration. Where Democrat and Republican administrations (as well as Liberal and Conservative ones) would differ would not be in terms of what they felt was the "right thing" to do (and I don't think anyone disagreed on the regional and human benefits of NOT having a Saddam-led regime), but with respect to what they each saw as prohibitive costs. Some administrations see prohibitive costs in terms of what the budget can't be spent on (hospitals, education, foreign aid, space exploration, culture, etc.), and thus are picky about what they consider to be the "right thing", where others see things like military expenditures not as losses but as economic catalysts, so they look at the same situation and see the "right thing" a little more readily, even though the human costs may well be high. Some see the human costs of suppressing activity elsewhere in the world as an acceptable one for what it buys you now. Others see the long-term potential losses in political instability and trickle-down effects on human lives as more costly than the short-term gains. My own sense is that as economists and economics become evermore synonymous with statesmanship and political decisions, government takes on an increasingly business-like model of what "doing the right thing" is. Businesses tend not to think much about 10 years from now, and governments are increasingly likely not to as well. That's not to damn economists in blanket fashion, because sometimes they DO help you make the right decision. In myown country (Canada), there was a long-running pay equity dispute in which a number of government jobs went underpaid for years and years, largely because there were mostly women in those jobs so they were undervalued with respect to fair compensation for workload, effort, skill set, qualifications, etc., relative to male-dominated occupations. The Supreme Court gave the government marching orders to settle and the government dawdled for ages because the tab seemed huge on the surface, and they couldn't figure out how the hell they would persuade the public (and themselves) that this was the right thing to do. The economists spoke up and noted that "Well it may LOOK like you have to write a 2billion dollar check, but note that these people who get 15-year retroactive settlements of 10k and 20k are going to spend them. When they spend that money, they are going to pay sales tax on it, and the person whose goods and services they purchase as a result of that spree is now going to have either spending money themselves or investment capital to increase the capacity of their organization and who knows maybe even hire some folks who are, in turn, going to pay more taxes." The upshot of it was that the economic impact to the federal budget of cutting a multibillion dollar cheque wasn't going to be nearly as painful as the feds first thought, so they cut the cheque and the sky hasn't fallen down yet. In other words, the economists helped them realize that they could do the right thing. Like I say, even though they all try to do the right thing, differences between administrations, and sometimes differences within administrations, stem from differences in perspective on what the real costs are. Some overlook fiscal trickle-down benefits, and some neglect human trickel-down costs.

5/9/2003 4:29 PM

Mark Hammer

In all fairness, government is not all about saving money. Modern government is there to do the right thing, no matter what it costs, but hopefully do it with the least human and fiscal cost. I'm fairly certain that, following 09/11, your attitude was not one of "Why should my tax dollars go to rebuilding downtown New York when *I* don't live there?". You looked at the situation, realized those people needed you, and didn't ask about the tab until MUCH further down the line. Same goes when a hurricane wipes out a town, or when a drought wipes out a crop.

If Iraq was the "right thing to do" and the cost was low (and I'm not just talking tax dollars here), then go for it. That's pretty much what was done by the current administration. Where Democrat and Republican administrations (as well as Liberal and Conservative ones) would differ would not be in terms of what they felt was the "right thing" to do (and I don't think anyone disagreed on the regional and human benefits of NOT having a Saddam-led regime), but with respect to what they each saw as prohibitive costs.

Some administrations see prohibitive costs in terms of what the budget can't be spent on (hospitals, education, foreign aid, space exploration, culture, etc.), and thus are picky about what they consider to be the "right thing", where others see things like military expenditures not as losses but as economic catalysts, so they look at the same situation and see the "right thing" a little more readily, even though the human costs may well be high. Some see the human costs of suppressing activity elsewhere in the world as an acceptable one for what it buys you now. Others see the long-term potential losses in political instability and trickle-down effects on human lives as more costly than the short-term gains.

My own sense is that as economists and economics become evermore synonymous with statesmanship and political decisions, government takes on an increasingly business-like model of what "doing the right thing" is. Businesses tend not to think much about 10 years from now, and governments are increasingly likely not to as well.

That's not to damn economists in blanket fashion, because sometimes they DO help you make the right decision. In myown country (Canada), there was a long-running pay equity dispute in which a number of government jobs went underpaid for years and years, largely because there were mostly women in those jobs so they were undervalued with respect to fair compensation for workload, effort, skill set, qualifications, etc., relative to male-dominated occupations. The Supreme Court gave the government marching orders to settle and the government dawdled for ages because the tab seemed huge on the surface, and they couldn't figure out how the hell they would persuade the public (and themselves) that this was the right thing to do. The economists spoke up and noted that "Well it may LOOK like you have to write a 2billion dollar check, but note that these people who get 15-year retroactive settlements of 10k and 20k are going to *spend* them. When they spend that money, they are going to pay sales tax on it, and the person whose goods and services they purchase as a result of that spree is now going to have either spending money themselves or investment capital to increase the capacity of their organization and who knows maybe even hire some folks who are, in turn, going to pay more taxes." The upshot of it was that the economic impact to the federal budget of cutting a multibillion dollar cheque wasn't going to be nearly as painful as the feds first thought, so they cut the cheque and the sky hasn't fallen down yet.

In other words, the economists helped them realize that they *could* do the right thing. Like I say, even though they all try to do the right thing, differences between administrations, and sometimes differences within administrations, stem from differences in perspective on what the real costs are. Some overlook fiscal trickle-down benefits, and some neglect human trickel-down costs.

5/9/2003 6:19 PM
LFOscalator	Mark, you said: "In all fairness, government is not all about saving money. Modern government is there to do the right thing, no matter what it costs" That is the liberal view. Obvoiously, conservatives would disagree with this statement. Your statement is intersting because it defines the crux of what liberal and conservative values are all about. LFO

5/9/2003 6:29 PM
LFOscalator	Interestingly, most Republicans would agree with your statements Mark. Like I said, Republicans these days are nothing but a bunch of liberals. LFO

5/9/2003 9:34 PM
Mark Hammer	Actually, my sense is that both sides would agree with the statement - in the abstract. Again, where they differ is in terms of what they consider to be the right thing. Conservatives have no difficulty throwing money at some sorts of things that liberals find offensive, and vice versa. Personally I don't see much difference between them...in the abstract., although the specific agenda of those who align with one side or the other can offend me from time to time. You need to remember that both sides still need to get elected and both sides in the electorate will say "You're spending too much" AND "You're not spending enough" AND "You're spending it on the wrong things". Hard to see how parties that listen to their electroate are going to end up having any unique "style" with respect to money and spending. So, no, I don't think I'd agree with your take on liberal/conservative differences.

5/9/2003 9:34 PM

Mark Hammer

Actually, my sense is that both sides would agree with the statement - in the abstract. Again, where they differ is in terms of what they consider to be the right thing. Conservatives have no difficulty throwing money at some sorts of things that liberals find offensive, and vice versa. Personally I don't see much difference between them...in the abstract., although the specific agenda of those who align with one side or the other can offend me from time to time.

You need to remember that both sides still need to get elected and both sides in the electorate will say "You're spending too much" AND "You're not spending enough" AND "You're spending it on the wrong things". Hard to see how parties that listen to their electroate are going to end up having any unique "style" with respect to money and spending.

So, no, I don't think I'd agree with your take on liberal/conservative differences.

Page 1 of 2

Next>

Last Page>>