http://www.gop.com/obamaspendometer.htm

850 billion!! Wow.... what's that about a month and a half in Iraq??????????

Machiavelli Wrote:850 billion!! Wow.... what's that about a month and a half in Iraq??????????

Don't research much, do ya?

EDIT: Nevermind Mach, I don't you don't. Allow me to help you out:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

494 Billion in about 6 years. ...but, I know you like to embellish.....A LOT, for political reasons.

The interesting thing to me is that the 850byn seems to include the tax increases, and that Obama's campaign has generally agreed on the costs. The number comes from a Republican site, but it uses figures generally directly from Obama or his staff. It certainly doesn't include anything that we know Congress will add onto it, which you KNOW won't be a pittance. The actual costs are going to be much higher. We ALL know they will. $850byn, at least over 4 years...

On the other side, the $494byn number is being reported by AT BEST a "fair" party, and at worst, an anti-Bush operative. There doesn't seem to be much substantiation to the number, so we don't know if this includes those costs that would have been incurred anyway (we DO have a standing military, and they drive their cars, tanks, planes and ships every day).

I'm not saying the number isn't right... but how would we know?

University of Chicago's economics department did a study trying to weigh the "Cost of War" with Iraq vs. the Cost of Containment with Saddam. Containment was very expensive and made it a wash........I noticed that site is using the Soros funded and discredited study for the number of dead Iraqi's still.

as for Obama, he simply has the Audacity of Hope that money will fall out of the sky and we can have every cradle to the grave gift there is, hold hands around the campfire and sing kumbaya. Yes We Can!, so inspiring...

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:850 billion!! Wow.... what's that about a month and a half in Iraq??????????

Don't research much, do ya?

EDIT: Nevermind Mach, I don't you don't. Allow me to help you out:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

494 Billion in about 6 years. ...but, I know you like to embellish.....A LOT, for political reasons.

Yep..worth every penny

GGniner Wrote:University of Chicago's economics department did a study trying to weigh the "Cost of War" with Iraq vs. the Cost of Containment with Saddam. Containment was very expensive and made it a wash........I noticed that site is using the Soros funded and discredited study for the number of dead Iraqi's still.

as for Obama, he simply has the Audacity of Hope that money will fall out of the sky and we can have every cradle to the grave gift there is, hold hands around the campfire and sing kumbaya. Yes We Can!, so inspiring...

Did the "Cost of War" with Iraq include decades of future costs related to medical and mental care for tens of thousands of soldiers who were injured or psychologically traumatized by the war?

NIU007 Wrote:Did the "Cost of War" with Iraq include decades of future costs related to medical and mental care for tens of thousands of soldiers who were injured or psychologically traumatized by the war?

Well, we don't know WHAT it includes, but I doubt they left out much... as for the injuries and trauma... ummmmm... I'm pretty sure they volunteered, and I'm pretty sure they were told they might have to fight. No, I don't wish trauma on anyone, but when you volunteer to be a soldier, you're going to face trauma...

We certainly know that Obama's figures DON'T include the generation of welfare drains his plans would create, and certainly not the generation of under-achievers who will never pay taxes, but will collect social security by turning "the minimum wage" which is SUPPOSED to be reserved for people with little or no skills who are basically getting "training" as part of their salary, and turning it into a career by making it a "living wage".

Let me put it this way... If you're trying to support a family and the skill set you possess is only worth what a 16 year old kid in his first job can earn, then maybe you need to improve your skill set.

Hambone10 Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:Did the "Cost of War" with Iraq include decades of future costs related to medical and mental care for tens of thousands of soldiers who were injured or psychologically traumatized by the war?

Well, we don't know WHAT it includes, but I doubt they left out much... as for the injuries and trauma... ummmmm... I'm pretty sure they volunteered, and I'm pretty sure they were told they might have to fight. No, I don't wish trauma on anyone, but when you volunteer to be a soldier, you're going to face trauma...

We certainly know that Obama's figures DON'T include the generation of welfare drains his plans would create, and certainly not the generation of under-achievers who will never pay taxes, but will collect social security by turning "the minimum wage" which is SUPPOSED to be reserved for people with little or no skills who are basically getting "training" as part of their salary, and turning it into a career by making it a "living wage".

Let me put it this way... If you're trying to support a family and the skill set you possess is only worth what a 16 year old kid in his first job can earn, then maybe you need to improve your skill set.

So what you're saying is that since these soldiers volunteered to fight for their country, they shouldn't have their medical bills covered for injuries that occurred while fighting for their country? Any vets on this board that agree with this? Isn't it the very least the country can do for them, after what they've done?

Secondly, it isn't so easy to simply improve your skill set to something that pays enough. Let's say you're working at a job, and the company closes the office and moves the job overseas. Now you look for a new job, say, something in computer science. I know people that were going to school for that at my previous job, but by the time they finished, many of the jobs got shipped over to Asia. And it takes time to be re-trained in something that will pay enough. Eventually you may get there but for the time being..... And some of these people already have a family (before they got laid off), so you can't say, "don't have kids if you can't support them".

Just try to look at it from their point of view for once. Not everybody is out there to work the system, though I understand your point that there are some that will do that.

As a vet, I can tell you, NIU, their medical bills ARE covered. Not only that, that little glitch in bonuses that libs are using to denigrate the Bush Administration? Is BS. It was a glitch. It's since been resolved. I've been working with, or in, the US Military for the past 16 years.

RebelKev Wrote:As a vet, I can tell you, NIU, their medical bills ARE covered. Not only that, that little glitch in bonuses that libs are using to denigrate the Bush Administration? Is BS. It was a glitch. It's since been resolved. I've been working with, or in, the US Military for the past 16 years.

I guess my question still remains, are those costs, which continue for decades, included in the cost comparison mentioned above? Also, if a vet's bills are paid for but they have to drive 4 hours to a facility to get medical care, I think that's a problem - that's what I'm hearing, don't know the truth of that. I do know that they had been trying to close VA hospitals for some time due to the number of living WWII vets decreasing. I worked for the VA in the early 90s and I remember wondering, "What if we have another war?"

NIU007 Wrote:I guess my question still remains, are those costs, which continue for decades, included in the cost comparison mentioned above? Also, if a vet's bills are paid for but they have to drive 4 hours to a facility to get medical care, I think that's a problem - that's what I'm hearing, don't know the truth of that. I do know that they had been trying to close VA hospitals for some time due to the number of living WWII vets decreasing. I worked for the VA in the early 90s and I remember wondering, "What if we have another war?"

We have two here. About being a veteran, we don't get free medical care unless maybe we were wounded in battle and given a percentage or we were medically retired. Veterans retired can use any number of hospitals, not just the VA or a military hospital. Tricare works with many civilian hospitals.

NIU007 Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:[quote=NIU007]

Did the "Cost of War" with Iraq include decades of future costs related to medical and mental care for tens of thousands of soldiers who were injured or psychologically traumatized by the war?

Well, we don't know WHAT it includes, but I doubt they left out much... as for the injuries and trauma... ummmmm... I'm pretty sure they volunteered, and I'm pretty sure they were told they might have to fight. No, I don't wish trauma on anyone, but when you volunteer to be a soldier, you're going to face trauma...

NIU007 Wrote:So what you're saying is that since these soldiers volunteered to fight for their country, they shouldn't have their medical bills covered for injuries that occurred while fighting for their country? Any vets on this board that agree with this? Isn't it the very least the country can do for them, after what they've done?

Don't try that with me, friend. I suspect I know much more about the pain of war than you ever will. Not as much as many, but more than most. If you know more about it than I, then God Bless you... if not, lets just drop it.

How in the world you get that from my post is beyond me. You asked if the costs were included... I said I don't know because they just list a number with no justification, but knowing that people trying to make a point tend to exaggerate, or at least add things that only MIGHT be attributable to the activity in question, I doubt they left much out.

I'm simply saying that soldiers aren't stupid. The knew there was a chance for trauma when they signed the document. Sure, they hoped to avoid serious repurcussions... but they were given no guarantees... and yes, as Kev says... there IS care for our vets. We can argue over whether it is it enough/sufficient, but it is there... thus I suspect it is in that number.

Hambone10 Wrote:We certainly know that Obama's figures DON'T include the generation of welfare drains his plans would create, and certainly not the generation of under-achievers who will never pay taxes, but will collect social security by turning "the minimum wage" which is SUPPOSED to be reserved for people with little or no skills who are basically getting "training" as part of their salary, and turning it into a career by making it a "living wage".

Let me put it this way... If you're trying to support a family and the skill set you possess is only worth what a 16 year old kid in his first job can earn, then maybe you need to improve your skill set.

NIU007 Wrote:Secondly, it isn't so easy to simply improve your skill set to something that pays enough. Let's say you're working at a job, and the company closes the office and moves the job overseas. Now you look for a new job, say, something in computer science. I know people that were going to school for that at my previous job, but by the time they finished, many of the jobs got shipped over to Asia. And it takes time to be re-trained in something that will pay enough. Eventually you may get there but for the time being..... And some of these people already have a family (before they got laid off), so you can't say, "don't have kids if you can't support them".

Just try to look at it from their point of view for once. Not everybody is out there to work the system, though I understand your point that there are some that will do that.

My post talks of generations of welfare recipients, and you talk about victims of circumstance.

The minimum wage is designed for jobs that require little or no skills or previous training. It is not designed to be a career. Why would someone make a career out of a job that requires no training and pays very little because virtually ANYONE can do that job?? Part of the "income" is the training. You might have a job like that when you're 16, or while you're training for a different job, but to think that a 25 or 30 or 35 year old person with (to use your example) an IT certification, or a degree in CS would still be working the front counter at McDonalds, after a year is crazy... and if he IS, I think most financial planners would encourage him to NOT have children at that time. If he's still at the counter, then he's not learning new skills. Maybe he should try a DIFFERENT minimum wage job?

A big part of my argument would be that if we got the freeloaders off of the collective teet, then there would be more money for the people who NEED the support and/or less cost for those who provide the support.

Hambone10 Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:[quote=NIU007]

Did the "Cost of War" with Iraq include decades of future costs related to medical and mental care for tens of thousands of soldiers who were injured or psychologically traumatized by the war?

Well, we don't know WHAT it includes, but I doubt they left out much... as for the injuries and trauma... ummmmm... I'm pretty sure they volunteered, and I'm pretty sure they were told they might have to fight. No, I don't wish trauma on anyone, but when you volunteer to be a soldier, you're going to face trauma...

NIU007 Wrote:So what you're saying is that since these soldiers volunteered to fight for their country, they shouldn't have their medical bills covered for injuries that occurred while fighting for their country? Any vets on this board that agree with this? Isn't it the very least the country can do for them, after what they've done?

Don't try that with me, friend. I suspect I know much more about the pain of war than you ever will. Not as much as many, but more than most. If you know more about it than I, then God Bless you... if not, lets just drop it.

How in the world you get that from my post is beyond me. You asked if the costs were included... I said I don't know because they just list a number with no justification, but knowing that people trying to make a point tend to exaggerate, or at least add things that only MIGHT be attributable to the activity in question, I doubt they left much out.

I'm simply saying that soldiers aren't stupid. The knew there was a chance for trauma when they signed the document. Sure, they hoped to avoid serious repurcussions... but they were given no guarantees... and yes, as Kev says... there IS care for our vets. We can argue over whether it is it enough/sufficient, but it is there... thus I suspect it is in that number.

Hambone10 Wrote:We certainly know that Obama's figures DON'T include the generation of welfare drains his plans would create, and certainly not the generation of under-achievers who will never pay taxes, but will collect social security by turning "the minimum wage" which is SUPPOSED to be reserved for people with little or no skills who are basically getting "training" as part of their salary, and turning it into a career by making it a "living wage".

Let me put it this way... If you're trying to support a family and the skill set you possess is only worth what a 16 year old kid in his first job can earn, then maybe you need to improve your skill set.

NIU007 Wrote:Secondly, it isn't so easy to simply improve your skill set to something that pays enough. Let's say you're working at a job, and the company closes the office and moves the job overseas. Now you look for a new job, say, something in computer science. I know people that were going to school for that at my previous job, but by the time they finished, many of the jobs got shipped over to Asia. And it takes time to be re-trained in something that will pay enough. Eventually you may get there but for the time being..... And some of these people already have a family (before they got laid off), so you can't say, "don't have kids if you can't support them".

Just try to look at it from their point of view for once. Not everybody is out there to work the system, though I understand your point that there are some that will do that.

My post talks of generations of welfare recipients, and you talk about victims of circumstance.

The minimum wage is designed for jobs that require little or no skills or previous training. It is not designed to be a career. Why would someone make a career out of a job that requires no training and pays very little because virtually ANYONE can do that job?? Part of the "income" is the training. You might have a job like that when you're 16, or while you're training for a different job, but to think that a 25 or 30 or 35 year old person with (to use your example) an IT certification, or a degree in CS would still be working the front counter at McDonalds, after a year is crazy... and if he IS, I think most financial planners would encourage him to NOT have children at that time. If he's still at the counter, then he's not learning new skills. Maybe he should try a DIFFERENT minimum wage job?

A big part of my argument would be that if we got the freeloaders off of the collective teet, then there would be more money for the people who NEED the support and/or less cost for those who provide the support.

Don't feel too much like arguing today, so I"ll just say, if we are able to separate the free-loaders from the non-free-loaders, then that's good enough for me.

NIU007 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:As a vet, I can tell you, NIU, their medical bills ARE covered. Not only that, that little glitch in bonuses that libs are using to denigrate the Bush Administration? Is BS. It was a glitch. It's since been resolved. I've been working with, or in, the US Military for the past 16 years.

I guess my question still remains, are those costs, which continue for decades, included in the cost comparison mentioned above? Also, if a vet's bills are paid for but they have to drive 4 hours to a facility to get medical care, I think that's a problem - that's what I'm hearing, don't know the truth of that. I do know that they had been trying to close VA hospitals for some time due to the number of living WWII vets decreasing. I worked for the VA in the early 90s and I remember wondering, "What if we have another war?"

Does it really matter since Obama wants to give everyone "free" health care anyway?

dfarr Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:As a vet, I can tell you, NIU, their medical bills ARE covered. Not only that, that little glitch in bonuses that libs are using to denigrate the Bush Administration? Is BS. It was a glitch. It's since been resolved. I've been working with, or in, the US Military for the past 16 years.

I guess my question still remains, are those costs, which continue for decades, included in the cost comparison mentioned above? Also, if a vet's bills are paid for but they have to drive 4 hours to a facility to get medical care, I think that's a problem - that's what I'm hearing, don't know the truth of that. I do know that they had been trying to close VA hospitals for some time due to the number of living WWII vets decreasing. I worked for the VA in the early 90s and I remember wondering, "What if we have another war?"

Does it really matter since Obama wants to give everyone "free" health care anyway?

In that case, no, it wouldn't matter. Even if elected I don't see him pulling it off. At least, I don't see any politically palatable way to pay for it. Then again, the government is pretty good at budgetary sleight of hand. In fact, they're professionals at it.

NIU007 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:As a vet, I can tell you, NIU, their medical bills ARE covered. Not only that, that little glitch in bonuses that libs are using to denigrate the Bush Administration? Is BS. It was a glitch. It's since been resolved. I've been working with, or in, the US Military for the past 16 years.

I guess my question still remains, are those costs, which continue for decades, included in the cost comparison mentioned above? Also, if a vet's bills are paid for but they have to drive 4 hours to a facility to get medical care, I think that's a problem - that's what I'm hearing, don't know the truth of that. I do know that they had been trying to close VA hospitals for some time due to the number of living WWII vets decreasing. I worked for the VA in the early 90s and I remember wondering, "What if we have another war?"

Does it really matter since Obama wants to give everyone "free" health care anyway?

In that case, no, it wouldn't matter. Even if elected I don't see him pulling it off. At least, I don't see any politically palatable way to pay for it. Then again, the government is pretty good at budgetary sleight of hand. In fact, they're professionals at it.

You are correct..professional pickpockets