BF2S Forums They have gone too far

FEOS wrote:

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.

Okay, let's stop right there, because this is precisely where your failure to grasp this situation lies. Read the analogy through again. It doesn't matter if you couldn't have gotten a loan for $50k if you had done anything other than flush it down the toilet, because you did, and now, a day later, you're sitting there $50k in debt, thinking about what you could've spent that $50k on. You've got a NET DEFICIT, which is MONEY SPENT, money that could have been spent elsewhere, but will now go towards paying back your loan instead.

The Iraq War happened, and every single dollar of deficit incurred by the Iraq War could have been spent somewhere else. That's a simple fact, because while the money for the Iraq War may not have been borrowed for anything else, you're still standing with a NET DEFICIT, which is MONEY SPENT, money that could've been spent elsewhere, but will now go towards paying back the loans instead.

FEOS wrote:

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.

On the contrary, your flawed logic, and apparently flawed reading comprehension, leads you to make flawed assumptions like that. If you would take a second to read through my posts with a cool head, I'm sure you'd see that no where did I make any claim that funds of that magnitude would have been loaned for any other purpose, but that it does not matter, because a loan was taken, and the bill is there to pay. If there had been no war, there would've been no bill to pay, and the money could've been spent elsewhere.

FEOS wrote:

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?

Yes, that money could have gone into good use on other programs, and no, the US wouldn't need to go into significant debt to fund social programs, if these social programs could have been funded by the money which will now be used to pay back the war loans.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-10-18 01:44:39)

mikkel wrote:

Okay, let's stop right there, because this is precisely where your failure to grasp this situation lies. Read the analogy through again. It doesn't matter if you couldn't have gotten a loan for $50k if you had done anything other than flush it down the toilet, because you did, and now, a day later, you're sitting there $50k in debt, thinking about what you could've spent that $50k on. You've got a NET DEFICIT, which is MONEY SPENT, money that could have been spent elsewhere, but will now go towards paying back your loan instead.

The Iraq War happened, and every single dollar of deficit incurred by the Iraq War could have been spent somewhere else. That's a simple fact, because while the money for the Iraq War may not have been borrowed for anything else, you're still standing with a NET DEFICIT, which is MONEY SPENT, money that could've been spent elsewhere, but will now go towards paying back the loans instead.

I see where you're coming from. The part you are missing is the implication WAY back at the beginning of this was that the money spent on the Iraq War could have been better spent on something else, ie, that the same amount of money that has been spent up to this point could've been better spent elsewhere. Nowhere was it either implied or stated outright that the "money best spent elsewhere" was after the fact, in the outyears, paying off the Iraq debt. Rather, the clear implication was that the $10B/month that is being spent right now could better be spent elsewhere...right now. Hence the position that if there were no Iraq War, the money being spent right now and up to now on the Iraq War would never have been borrowed and thus would never have been spent to begin with.

And you say it again: "You've got a NET DEFICIT, which is MONEY SPENT, money that could have been spent elsewhere, but will now go towards paying back your loan instead."

That money spent is over and above the baseline budget. That money couldn't have been spent elsewhere, because if not for the loan used to acquire it, it wouldn't have existed in the first place. You are confusing the MONEY SPENT with reallocation of unearned income that will now have to be devoted to paying off the incurred debt. Not once did you make that distinction in this entire thread. I THINK that's what you're getting at, but even your latest attempt to explain it doesn't lay out your position clearly.

Only now do you throw out the concept that the "money better spent" is the money being used to repay the loans after the fact. Only now have you introduced the idea of post-loan income reallocation being used to pay the debt instead of social programs. That's a far cry from what started this whole discussion. Sorry that I didn't catch what you neither implied or stated previously. My clairvoyance is getting rusty.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

On the contrary, your flawed logic, and apparently flawed reading comprehension, leads you to make flawed assumptions like that. If you would take a second to read through my posts with a cool head, I'm sure you'd see that no where did I make any claim that funds of that magnitude would have been loaned for any other purpose, but that it does not matter, because a loan was taken, and the bill is there to pay. If there had been no war, there would've been no bill to pay, and the money could've been spent elsewhere.

I've had a cool head the entire time...up until that last post. See above. You have changed the focus of your argument.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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?

Yes, that money could have gone into good use on other programs, and no, the US wouldn't need to go into significant debt to fund social programs, if these social programs could have been funded by the money which will now be used to pay back the war loans.

And here it is again. You are neglecting the baseline budget in your assessment. All those "must pays" that we have like SS, VA, Medicare, etc. In order to fund social programs out of the baseline budget (which now includes the additional payment on the debt), something else has to be cut. It's not like there's more money to be spent...the overall income is roughly the same. So when the deficit is increased and there isn't a corresponding increase in revenue, either more debt is incurred (and as such the existing debt is not decreased) or other programs must be cut to pay for the debt. If the debt is not there, you still have the same baseline revenue from which to work. The existence of the increased debt has no bearing on that, so using repayment of debt as an example of where money could be spent on social programs instead is a non-starter.

FEOS wrote:

It's like saying 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.

But:
- We're entitled to say anyone who takes out a $50k loan to flush it down the toilet is a fuckwit, and anyone who supports flushing money down the pan is also a fuckwit.
- You've still saddled the next generation with a $50k debt and $5k/yr in interest payments, that $5k/yr IS money which now won't be spent on something useful.
- We're entitled to ask WTF the point was in the first place.

I still like the analogy of taking out a mortgage to buy a house, and burning it down because you have a mate who is a fireman and needs some overtime.

SgtHeihn wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,437763,00.html

EA has allowed Obama to purchase in game adds.

WTF, keep this shit outta mah games!

It's capitalism...  I thought you guys liked that sort of thing.