BF2S Forums They have gone too far

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

None. Because if the Iraq War hadn't happened all that supplemental spending (which is nearly exclusively what funds the Iraq War) would never have been levied. People keep thinking that that money would have been spent elsewhere...it wouldn't have been spent at all.

You're saying that as if the money used in the Iraq war materialised out of nowhere along with backing assets. It might be supplemental spending, but the bill doesn't just disappear. It's paid using money that could've been spent elsewhere.

You're missing the point. It's money that wouldn't have been spent otherwise. Yes, the government could have increased spending dramatically, but that would only have increased the deficit...just as the Iraq War spending has. It's not money that would have been in the budget otherwise...it's not an offset from other programs. It is new spending. New deficit spending. It comes from borrowing from others. I never implied otherwise.

No, I'm not missing the point. Nothing in my post suggests that I am. Yes, the money is backed by loans, but those loans have to be repaid, and the money to do that could've been spent elsewhere. It's as simple as it gets. You spend money in one place, and you take money from another place to cover the deficit.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-10-15 15:40:05)

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

You're saying that as if the money used in the Iraq war materialised out of nowhere along with backing assets. It might be supplemental spending, but the bill doesn't just disappear. It's paid using money that could've been spent elsewhere.

You're missing the point. It's money that wouldn't have been spent otherwise. Yes, the government could have increased spending dramatically, but that would only have increased the deficit...just as the Iraq War spending has. It's not money that would have been in the budget otherwise...it's not an offset from other programs. It is new spending. New deficit spending. It comes from borrowing from others. I never implied otherwise.

No, I'm not missing the point. Nothing in my post suggests that I am. Yes, the money is backed by loans, but those loans have to be repaid, and the money to do that could've been spent elsewhere. It's as simple as it gets. You spend money in one place, and you take money from another place to cover the deficit.

/headdesk

If you never take out a loan to begin with, then that money never has to be repaid. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

If the Iraq War hadn't happened, those loans would never have been drawn. Therefore, they would never have needed to be repaid, because they wouldn't exist. The amount spent far outweighs anything in the budget that would allow for balanced books at the end of the fiscal year. Money is not being taken away from other areas to pay for the deficit created...it's just being paid on an ultra-long term.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

My understanding was that he was asking for existing laws to be exercised to stamp out false rumours and lies being spread about him... unless I've missed subsequent stories about him, feel free to fill me in.

Trying to stop the NRA PAC from running ads
Trying to stop ads bringing up his ties to Ayers

Neither of those go into detail regarding the laws or grounds on which Obama is seeking to have those advertisements kept off the air... it's America FEOS, it's quite simple, if there is a law or regulation there that addresses Obama's concern over the ads then he has every right to pursue it; if the ads are not infringing on any laws or regulations well then Obama can shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.

He is not trying to change the constitution so as he can muzzle the press... you're grossly overestimating his power and influence if you actually believe he is.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Well, maybe it should be spent elsewhere. I'm sorry but when it comes to shaky moral ground spending billions on a war of folly easily beats spending on advertising in a campaign race... I mean for fuck's sake he needs to win the race to begin with if he actually wants to implement any of his supposed sweeping changes.

You're also missing the point... no one is saying the Iraq money would have been spent feeding hungry people, they are saying what if it was?

I'm not saying the two are even comparable, nor is anyone else, I believe. It was m3th that brought the issue up. I was merely pointing out that 1) the notion that the Iraq money would have been spent absent the war is ludicrous and 2) that wondering what could have been done with that money instead of funding the war is inane. It wouldn't have been spent...and if it had been spent on social programs, the country would be just as in debt as it is now, and people would be screaming for blood over that instead of over the debt imposed by the war.

So America is a country that only borrows money when it is going to be used to attack people and not when it is to be used to help people? Nice.

So now instead of a heavily indebted America with less hungry and homeless people you have a heavily indebted America with the same poverty problems (if not more) plus, halfway around the world, an Iraq with a surplus of cash and a domestic security situation that is still swallowing up American (read as Chinese) money... I know which scenario I would have been more content with.

Braddock wrote:

Neither of those go into detail regarding the laws or grounds on which Obama is seeking to have those advertisements kept off the air... it's America FEOS, it's quite simple, if there is a law or regulation there that addresses Obama's concern over the ads then he has every right to pursue it; if the ads are not infringing on any laws or regulations well then Obama can shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.

He is not trying to change the constitution so as he can muzzle the press... you're grossly overestimating his power and influence if you actually believe he is.

I never said he was trying to change the Constitution, did I? He is attempting to curtail others' exercising of their rights under the Constitution. The fact that he is trying for a legal injunction against these organizations for running ads that portray him in a negative light--while a perfectly legal thing for him to do--speaks volumes about him and his campaign.

Braddock wrote:

So America is a country that only borrows money when it is going to be used to attack people and not when it is to be used to help people? Nice.

No. America borrows money all the time. If we didn't, we wouldn't have a national debt, would we?

The question related to spending the money used for the Iraq War elsewhere. All I said was that if the Iraq War hadn't happened, that money would not have been otherwise borrowed in order to be spent elsewhere, so it's a moot discussion.

Braddock wrote:

So now instead of a heavily indebted America with less hungry and homeless people you have a heavily indebted America with the same poverty problems (if not more) plus, halfway around the world, an Iraq with a surplus of cash and a domestic security situation that is still swallowing up American (read as Chinese) money... I know which scenario I would have been more content with.

Now you're arguing the merits of spending money (again, that wouldn't have been borrowed had the war not happened) on social programs instead of war. Of course, I would rather money were spent on social programs instead of war. I would rather we didn't have to ever spend another dime on war...but that's..."Imaginationland" I believe someone called it once.

My point (again) is that if you're talking about using the specific expenditures for the Iraq War somewhere else, it's a nonsensical discussion. If the Iraq War had not occurred, that money would not have been borrowed, and thus would not have been available to spend elsewhere.

Name a single country that has gone into that kind of debt strictly to fund social programs. You can't. Things simply don't work that way.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Headdesk? Listen, FEOS, the Iraq War happened, we agree on that, right? Okay.

The bill for the Iraq War has to be paid, we agree on that, right? Okay.

Where do you think that money will come from?

Just so I can keep track...

Are we talking about spending the Iraq War funding elsewhere or are we talking about paying back the debt incurred by borrowing the money to pay for the Iraq War? They are two separate issues, and I was talking about the first one.

The post you initially replied to speculated how many people could've been fed with the money spent on the Iraq War. In that context, it doesn't matter if the author grounded his speculation in spending the Iraq War funding elsewhere, or spending the payments on the loans backing the Iraq War elsewhere, because in the end, the money is the same. It's money spent in one place, and the post you replied to speculated about the outcome of spending that money in another place.

And my reply was that it was a moot point. The money wouldn't have been spent in another place, because the money wouldn't have been lent to begin with.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Headdesk? Listen, FEOS, the Iraq War happened, we agree on that, right? Okay.

The bill for the Iraq War has to be paid, we agree on that, right? Okay.

Where do you think that money will come from?

Just so I can keep track...

Are we talking about spending the Iraq War funding elsewhere or are we talking about paying back the debt incurred by borrowing the money to pay for the Iraq War? They are two separate issues, and I was talking about the first one.

The post you initially replied to speculated how many people could've been fed with the money spent on the Iraq War. In that context, it doesn't matter if the author grounded his speculation in spending the Iraq War funding elsewhere, or spending the payments on the loans backing the Iraq War elsewhere, because in the end, the money is the same. It's money spent in one place, and the post you replied to speculated about the outcome of spending that money in another place.

You need to understand the conservative mind-set.  Very narrow and focused, issues don't link to one another such as -

Pro-Life and Death Penalty
Gun Control and Crime Control
Muslim Extremists vs. White/Protestant Supremecist Militia Movements
The 2nd Amendment vs. The Rest of the Bill of Rights
Government Spending vs. 50% Military Budget
Racism is different than "Reverse Racism"
Religious freedom vs. Christian Nation belief
Abortion, Birth Control, Minorities, and Teen Mothers
Christian values vs Hawkishness
Anti-liberal Views vs. Jesus Worship
Individual Freedom vs. Anti-Democratic Government (anti-taxation, deregulation, ability for fewer and fewer private groups to aggregate more and more wealth/power)
Responsibility vs. Long-term consequences (see above)

Its called "authoritarian cognitive dissonance."  Its how a few posters on here can write completely lame talking points and not dig one step deeper to see the related issues or how they can state completely polar opposite stances on related issues.  At least ATG was broken of that habit in the last few months I've noticed, but a few other libertarian wannabes still need to shore up their schizophrenic outlooks when they argue on here or re-post concern-trolling chain mails.  Having principles and a belief system that's all over the damned map, where each item/issue doesn't logically connect, doesn't make you free thinking and independant, it just makes you more or less nuts.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Neither of those go into detail regarding the laws or grounds on which Obama is seeking to have those advertisements kept off the air... it's America FEOS, it's quite simple, if there is a law or regulation there that addresses Obama's concern over the ads then he has every right to pursue it; if the ads are not infringing on any laws or regulations well then Obama can shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.

He is not trying to change the constitution so as he can muzzle the press... you're grossly overestimating his power and influence if you actually believe he is.

I never said he was trying to change the Constitution, did I? He is attempting to curtail others' exercising of their rights under the Constitution. The fact that he is trying for a legal injunction against these organizations for running ads that portray him in a negative light--while a perfectly legal thing for him to do--speaks volumes about him and his campaign.

Braddock wrote:

So America is a country that only borrows money when it is going to be used to attack people and not when it is to be used to help people? Nice.

No. America borrows money all the time. If we didn't, we wouldn't have a national debt, would we?

The question related to spending the money used for the Iraq War elsewhere. All I said was that if the Iraq War hadn't happened, that money would not have been otherwise borrowed in order to be spent elsewhere, so it's a moot discussion.

Braddock wrote:

So now instead of a heavily indebted America with less hungry and homeless people you have a heavily indebted America with the same poverty problems (if not more) plus, halfway around the world, an Iraq with a surplus of cash and a domestic security situation that is still swallowing up American (read as Chinese) money... I know which scenario I would have been more content with.

Now you're arguing the merits of spending money (again, that wouldn't have been borrowed had the war not happened) on social programs instead of war. Of course, I would rather money were spent on social programs instead of war. I would rather we didn't have to ever spend another dime on war...but that's..."Imaginationland" I believe someone called it once.

My point (again) is that if you're talking about using the specific expenditures for the Iraq War somewhere else, it's a nonsensical discussion. If the Iraq War had not occurred, that money would not have been borrowed, and thus would not have been available to spend elsewhere.

Name a single country that has gone into that kind of debt strictly to fund social programs. You can't. Things simply don't work that way.

So The Bush administration was only prepared to bury the country in debt on the grounds that the money would be used to wage a war... no other cause would have been deemed worthy to secure the loans and plunge the nation as a whole dramatically into the red?

Braddock wrote:

So The Bush administration was only prepared to bury the country in debt on the grounds that the money would be used to wage a war... no other cause would have been deemed worthy to secure the loans and plunge the nation as a whole dramatically into the red?

So you couldn't name another country in the world that would go dramatically in the red to fund social programs? Is that what you're saying?

It's not just the Bush administration that would behave the way you've described, no matter how much you want to make it unique to him. It's pretty much every administration in every government in every country in the world.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

So The Bush administration was only prepared to bury the country in debt on the grounds that the money would be used to wage a war... no other cause would have been deemed worthy to secure the loans and plunge the nation as a whole dramatically into the red?

So you couldn't name another country in the world that would go dramatically in the red to fund social programs? Is that what you're saying?

It's not just the Bush administration that would behave the way you've described, no matter how much you want to make it unique to him. It's pretty much every administration in every government in every country in the world.

I'm not simply bashing the US, or even, Bush with this argument, I'm simply pointing out the inherent moral corruption that permeates International politics everywhere. You are right that not many countries would plunge themselves into debt to help their poor, their needy and their suffering... many would, however, plunge their country into debt to wage a war and attack 'the enemy' and this, in my opinion, is a sad reflection on mankind.

Debt as a result of providing aid and social programs = "no way Jose"

Debt as a result of waging a war and killing 'the enemy' = "where do I sign?"

I'm not saying the money couldn't have been put to good use elsewhere...I'm saying it never would have been borrowed to be spent elsewhere to begin with.

Why not? If Duhbya could just up and say "I'm going to blow $2Trillion on an unwinnable fight in a sandpit" why couldn't he have blown it on gigantic mirrors to cut global warming, a talking monkey for every school classroom or I don't know what.
You can't say 'It wouldn't have been spent but for the Iraq war' it was an entirely voluntary war, as the talking monkey program could have been.

Or you can say it if you like but it doesn't make any sense.

you weren't planning on buying more bread and/or milk anyway, so you would never have taken out a $10,000 loan to buy it to begin with

Maybe, maybe not, the next few govts will certainly have to look hard at whether they can afford bread and milk while they are paying off the interest and the capital Duhbya squandered.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-17 05:14:53)

GTT wrote:

Exactly the point.  No principles running in the background, no connection to a broader framework, just a smorgasboard of divergent opinions on everything even if they're related.  By selecting principles and sticking to them, nobody is "binning you" or sticking you in a box, everyone is entitled to evolve or change just fine as their knowledge base increases and they synthesize their thoughts through introspection.

Its just in general a sign of maturity when your world-view is formed (no good or evil judgement withstanding) and you can logically parse your beliefs into a set of "core" values you can be honest with yourself using.  As well, accepting that the beliefs you espouse have an impact on those around you in great or small ways goes a long way towards your own sense of responsibility.

So, if we don't fit your narrow model, we somehow are not mature? Perhaps your esoteric language could be grounded and focused a bit to make it more clear?

You need to understand the conservative mind-set.  Very narrow and focused, issues don't link to one another

Could just be that your model is flawed and your arrogance is showing. Your "model" of a conservative mind-set is no more valid than if someone posted (and someone probably has) a "model" of a liberal mind-set that involved granola-eating, sandal-wearing, tree-hugging, and a total lack of sense of personal responsibility. You say "nobody is 'binning you' or sticking you in a box", yet you lay out criteria for your supposed "conservative mind-set" that do exactly that.

I know exactly what my core values are and I haven't diverged from them one bit in any of my posts. In fact, I would say a sign of maturity is altering your views and your core values as you open your mind and become better informed (ie, multiple points of view, not just the ones you agree with) on various subjects.

mikkel wrote:

That logic is totally flawed. That's like saying that speculating about what you could've done with your money, had you not taken a loan for $50k and flushed down the toilet, is moot simply because you would'nt have spent the $50k if you hadn't flushed it.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=2345766

Jesus H Tapdancin' Christ. That is not even close to what I've been saying.

Read the link provided. It's only four posts above yours, ffs.

It's like saying (to use your flawed analogy instead of Dilbert's flawed analogy, as I did four posts above yours) that speculating about what you could've done with that $50k you flushed down the toilet is moot because if you wouldn't have ever gotten a loan for $50k if you hadn't decided to flush it to begin with.

No Iraq War = No ridiculous expenditures associated with Iraq War = No loans to pay for ridiculous expenditures associated with Iraq War.

The flawed logic is assuming that without the Iraq War, the money would've been borrowed. It wouldn't have. Period. No Iraq War, no money borrowed to pay for Iraq War. Question of what that money should be spent on becomes moot, as that money does not exist without the Iraq War to stimulate the borrowing that resulted in the money being there.

Could that amount of money been put to good use on other programs? Of course.

Would any country ever go into that kind of debt to fund social programs absent some kind of crisis? Of course not.

Is that sufficiently simple, or do I need to explain it yet again?

sergeriver wrote:

Most likely you'll get McCain instead of Obama, and they'll have to release a patch.

Look who's back. Where ya been, serge?