Iraq War: 3 Trillion Dollars

*sigh*

Where does it say income or revenue recieved in the definition of cost? Nowhere. Give it up, boy.

If I buy something for 10 dollars that immediately generates 5 dollars then it cost me 5 dollars not 10 dollars....haven't I already said this?
 
If I buy something for 10 dollars that immediately generates 5 dollars then it cost me 5 dollars not 10 dollars....haven't I already said this?

Well repeating it again will make you right. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but when its you against the dictionary, the dictionary wins. Cost means expenditures. I provided the definition.
 
Well repeating it again will make you right. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but when its you against the dictionary, the dictionary wins. Cost means expenditures. I provided the definition.

cost out, to calculate the cost of (a project, product, etc.) in advance: to cost out a major construction project. www.dictionary.com

If your costing out a war you would definetly take into effect the revenues generated by the project would you not?
 
cost out, to calculate the cost of (a project, product, etc.) in advance: to cost out a major construction project. www.dictionary.com

Lmao...so you want to cherry pick a definition that will make him incorrect? He used the word, he likely is using one that fits with his theory.

If your costing out a war you would definetly take into effect the revenues generated by the project would you not?

If you were to find the net cost, but there is no evidence thats what he was measuring.
 
Lmao...so you want to cherry pick a definition that will make him incorrect? He used the word, he likely is using one that fits with his theory.



If you were to find the net cost, but there is no evidence thats what he was measuring.

No, its not cherry picking, he was painting as negative picture as he could paint. Without taking into effect the gains from the war. That's my point, not the damn definition of Cost. :cuckoo:
 
No, its not cherry picking, he was painting as negative picture as he could paint. Without taking into effect the gains from the war. That's my point, not the damn definition of Cost. :cuckoo:

Because he didn't include revenue?

Lmao...right.

So tell me...when the Bush administration looks at the cost of the war, how do they determine the revenue from the war? Oh wait...they must be partisan hacks as well looking to paint a negative picture as well, right?
 
Because he didn't include revenue?

Lmao...right.

So tell me...when the Bush administration looks at the cost of the war, how do they determine the revenue from the war? Oh wait...they must be partisan hacks as well looking to paint a negative picture as well, right?

No but if your going to take things not directly associated with the war, then surely you could account from some of the benefits.

Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen.
 
No but if your going to take things not directly associated with the war, then surely you could account from some of the benefits.

Surely you COULD if you wanted to find out what the net result was. However if you were trying to find the COST, there would be no reason too, since that would confuse most people since it would be using an obscure, and not commonly used version of the word. Oh, but he should do whatever he can to make the war seems like it costs less right? Because thats non-partisan. :rolleyes:
 
Surely you COULD if you wanted to find out what the net result was. However if you were trying to find the COST, there would be no reason too, since that would confuse most people since it would be using an obscure, and not commonly used version of the word. Oh, but he should do whatever he can to make the war seems like it costs less right? Because thats non-partisan. :rolleyes:

Well if you were costing out the war....then you would right. Of course you wouldn't consider revenues because if you did it wouldn't come to the same conclusion right?
 
Well if you were costing out the war....then you would right.

I see no reason too, no. As I've already explained cost generally means what Stiglitz said, not what you say.

Of course you wouldn't consider revenues because if you did it wouldn't come to the same conclusion right?

Right, I'm sure he used the common version of the word cost and didn't use an obscure and moronic definition because he was trying to skew the results.
 
I see no reason too, no. As I've already explained cost generally means what Stiglitz said, not what you say.



Right, I'm sure he used the common version of the word cost and didn't use an obscure and moronic definition because he was trying to skew the results.

Oh ok again the world according to Larkinn....LOL
 
What I'm not comfortable with is liberals lying their asses off.....


Once again, as with nearly everything else about Iraq, the people you voted for were horribly, negligently wrong about the cost of the war:

in January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with "a number that's something under $50 billion." He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.

And yet you continue to cheerlead for them, and dismiss the people who were RIGHT in their predictions and estimates of the cost of the war:


March 2006: Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts the final figure at a staggering $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops. Additional costs include a negative impact from the rising cost of oil and added interest on the national debt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/page/2/
 
Once again, as with nearly everything else about Iraq, the people you voted for were horribly, negligently wrong about the cost of the war:



And yet you continue to cheerlead for them, and dismiss the people who were RIGHT in their predictions and estimates of the cost of the war:





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/page/2/

The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003.

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts the final figure at a staggering $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops. Additional costs include a negative impact from the rising cost of oil and added interest on the national debt.

Obviously this guy is biased, one article he says 3.3 trillion dollars then the next article he says the final figure at 1-2 trillion....Lmao
Then not only is he contradicting himself, he doesn't account for any the gains in the economy from the war, but takes the negative effects...funny
 
Obviously this guy is biased, one article he says 3.3 trillion dollars then the next article he says the final figure at 1-2 trillion....Lmao

Wait, you mean the estimates of the costs of the war change as time goes on? What a surprise.

Then not only is he contradicting himself, he doesn't account for any the gains in the economy from the war, but takes the negative effects...funny

:eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall:
 
Wait, you mean the estimates of the costs of the war change as time goes on? What a surprise.



:eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall:

I think when we talk of the total cost, you have to account for both sides of the equation, both the expenditures as well as the revenues. How else can you come up with the "total" cost.

Less than two years and his estimate goes up by 2 trillion dollars please tell me your not serious.

By the way, tell me how it turns out you hitting that intellectual wall?
 
I think when we talk of the total cost, you have to account for both sides of the equation, both the expenditures as well as the revenues. How else can you come up with the "total" cost.

He is not trying to come up with the total net cost. Jesus christ, he is coming up with expenditures. That is his perogative. Bush doesn't include how it stimulates the economy and shit like that, don't expect Stiglitz too.

Less than two years and his estimate goes up by 2 trillion dollars please tell me your not serious.

He spent some time researching the issue for a book he was writing. That may have changed his calculations. Oh, and really, that someone changes their mind has nothing to do with bias. That is absurd.

By the way, tell me how it turns out you hitting that intellectual wall?

Trying to explain simple concepts to a retard? Its not going so well.
 
He is not trying to come up with the total net cost. Jesus christ, he is coming up with expenditures. That is his perogative. Bush doesn't include how it stimulates the economy and shit like that, don't expect Stiglitz too.



He spent some time researching the issue for a book he was writing. That may have changed his calculations. Oh, and really, that someone changes their mind has nothing to do with bias. That is absurd.



Trying to explain simple concepts to a retard? Its not going so well.

Trying to explain simple concepts to a retard? Its not going so well.
I know tell me about it I wish you could get it, but....


He admitted he opposed the war, correct? That's absurd he would leave out things that showed the war wasn't as costly as he claims...I know that's absurd
 

Forum List

Back
Top