Leftists feign outrage over the cost of the MOABs

[IsaacNewton]

Donald drumpf at the White House Correspondents Dinner trying to do comedy.

Now THAT'S the Mother Of All Bombs.

Nope, the mother of all bombs just wiped out a bunch of people you worship.

Your meme rolodex rules you doesn't it. drumpf is bombing in everything he does, I can see why you are so angry about your dear leader.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can you be specific on Obama term spending? Travel? Security? Entertaining at private locations then billing government? I presume you are outraged about spending on such projects... as opposed to people in need.. of jobs, safety from terrorists and other matters that value the human life that merits your concern in the ME, if not in America.

You telling us Obama paid for his travels as president?

Wherever did you get THAT idea? We are talking about spending government money. If Obama or Trump paid their own, nobody would have a gripe.

Your whining at the cost of Trump, but were silent when Obama took weekends in Vegas and other locations. So your saying it cost more to fly Trump than it did Obama?

Trump physically owns the property he fly's too.. It is set up for future visits and thus the overall cost is much less than Obama's dueling weekly vacations of he and Michelle.

There is no comparison between the two.. One was excessively extravagant on the public dime and one is using his own properties, at no cost to us, beyond the security and man power that is afforded every president.

Obama and Michelle were massive spenders compared to Trump and Melinena..

"using his own properties at no cost to us"? Are you on drugs?

WOW

Left wing ignorance on full display..

Yes Trump owns the property and NO he is not charging for its use.. Not even for the foreign dignitaries he hosts.. I bet that really chaps your ass too..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really can't make this up. Why not just wave in the white flag and accept that Trump has had you, at least that would be honest. Since when have hard leftists cared about the cost of government programs? Obama doubled the government debt from an insane level and not a word was uttered. If something, he was supposed to spend even more money...

Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?

Moab attack on Isis was a baffling choice in cold-blooded terms of cost

And to top it, they of course had to lie about the cost, multiplying it by over 20 times.

One MOAB Costs $16 Million, Not $314 Million

When the hard leftists decide to bring up the cost argument be it about MOABs or tomahawk's, you know they have got nothing. It's going to be painful 8 years for these folks.

Up next: The issue with Trump's wall is the cost, even if it's a drop in the bucket compared to Obama stimulus, which Obama was praised for.

<<Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?>> You are right, Norman. But I am puzzled why you don't feel that way about Americans though, as in healthcare, before and after school meals, Planned Parenthood, college costs, clean water, infrastructure...a whole myriad of domestic issues. I am aware that no matter how we spend our capital, somebody will have a complaint that it could have been done better. But if we paid $16 mil for a MOAB to take out 20-some terrorists, what's the calculation for a whole camp or town or city of them? And why is that a priority over domestic needs?

Our national defense supercedes EVERYTHING. In fact it's really the only thing the constitution demands. There is nothing in our Constitution about meals on wheels or obamaphones

You need to beat that into every liberal fools head.. but it wont help.. they are brain dead..

 

[OKTexas]

You really can't make this up. Why not just wave in the white flag and accept that Trump has had you, at least that would be honest. Since when have hard leftists cared about the cost of government programs? Obama doubled the government debt from an insane level and not a word was uttered. If something, he was supposed to spend even more money...

Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?

Moab attack on Isis was a baffling choice in cold-blooded terms of cost

And to top it, they of course had to lie about the cost, multiplying it by over 20 times.

One MOAB Costs $16 Million, Not $314 Million

When the hard leftists decide to bring up the cost argument be it about MOABs or tomahawk's, you know they have got nothing. It's going to be painful 8 years for these folks.

Up next: The issue with Trump's wall is the cost, even if it's a drop in the bucket compared to Obama stimulus, which Obama was praised for.

<<Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?>> You are right, Norman. But I am puzzled why you don't feel that way about Americans though, as in healthcare, before and after school meals, Planned Parenthood, college costs, clean water, infrastructure...a whole myriad of domestic issues. I am aware that no matter how we spend our capital, somebody will have a complaint that it could have been done better. But if we paid $16 mil for a MOAB to take out 20-some terrorists, what's the calculation for a whole camp or town or city of them? And why is that a priority over domestic needs?

Funny, my parents provided those for our family, I've provided them for myself and my family since I left home. Ever thought that people who can't afford a family maybe shouldn't start them? Besides the parents, everything you listed are State concerns, not federal.

 

[miketx]

Gas bags always lying....

 

[jknowgood]

Before attempting to derail my thread any further, please answer, when was the left concerned about the issues of costs or "how to best spend money" the last time...

I can't recall a period when that happened when Obama spent like a drunken sailor. So where does this sudden concern come from?

Can you be specific on Obama term spending? Travel? Security? Entertaining at private locations then billing government? I presume you are outraged about spending on such projects... as opposed to people in need.. of jobs, safety from terrorists and other matters that value the human life that merits your concern in the ME, if not in America.

You telling us Obama paid for his travels as president?

Wherever did you get THAT idea? We are talking about spending government money. If Obama or Trump paid their own, nobody would have a gripe.

Your whining at the cost of Trump, but were silent when Obama took weekends in Vegas and other locations. So your saying it cost more to fly Trump than it did Obama?

Well, you're right that I never 'whined' about Obama. It was you that did that! It was your whining about Obama that brought on the Trump comparisons you are now both defending. And BTW, you never said exactly what it was that Obama 'spent like a drunken sailor' on. Something silly in your eyes, no doubt, like healthcare or school meals or other such nonsense?

You mean the school meals that no one would eat? Thanks Mrs Obama.

 

[danielpalos]

When snowflakes start whining about the cost of anything, you know you won the argument.

don't whine about the cost of social services for the poor, dear.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

 

[danielpalos]

When snowflakes start whining about the cost of anything, you know you won the argument.

Right because why would drumpf or the Republican'ts care about wasting the taxpayer's money?

Tax breaks for the rich; so our debt can grow larger, faster.

 

[danielpalos]

You really can't make this up. Why not just wave in the white flag and accept that Trump has had you, at least that would be honest. Since when have hard leftists cared about the cost of government programs? Obama doubled the government debt from an insane level and not a word was uttered. If something, he was supposed to spend even more money...

Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?

Moab attack on Isis was a baffling choice in cold-blooded terms of cost

And to top it, they of course had to lie about the cost, multiplying it by over 20 times.

One MOAB Costs $16 Million, Not $314 Million

When the hard leftists decide to bring up the cost argument be it about MOABs or tomahawk's, you know they have got nothing. It's going to be painful 8 years for these folks.

Up next: The issue with Trump's wall is the cost, even if it's a drop in the bucket compared to Obama stimulus, which Obama was praised for.

<<Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?>> You are right, Norman. But I am puzzled why you don't feel that way about Americans though, as in healthcare, before and after school meals, Planned Parenthood, college costs, clean water, infrastructure...a whole myriad of domestic issues. I am aware that no matter how we spend our capital, somebody will have a complaint that it could have been done better. But if we paid $16 mil for a MOAB to take out 20-some terrorists, what's the calculation for a whole camp or town or city of them? And why is that a priority over domestic needs?

Our national defense supercedes EVERYTHING. In fact it's really the only thing the constitution demands. There is nothing in our Constitution about meals on wheels or obamaphones

I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, or economics.

There is no general defense clause. There is a general welfare clause.

 

[usmbguest5318]

While I concur with some leftist positions and some rightist ones, the cost of the MOAB is not among any of the things that concern me. It costs what it costs. The military determined that having it is necessary, and, frankly, that's what they are there to do, among other things. Lastly, I'm not going to invest myself in trying to gauge whether the military is right about needing it. I am wiling to "fry" the government's "fish," but not its "minnows."

 

[danielpalos]

While I concur with some leftist positions and some rightist ones, the cost of the MOAB is not among any of the things that concern me. It costs what it costs. The military determined that having it is necessary, and, frankly, that's what they are there to do, among other things. Lastly, I'm not going to invest myself in trying to gauge whether the military is right about needing it. I am wiling to "fry" the government's "fish," but not its "minnows."

It is not about military tactics or strategy, but political tactics and strategy.

Our current political tactics and strategy are just plain wrong; thus, our military can Only do what they can do, in "nexus 6 with zardoz and the incorrigibles".

What can we really hope to achieve with our warfare-State economy?

 

[Norman]

While I concur with some leftist positions and some rightist ones, the cost of the MOAB is not among any of the things that concern me. It costs what it costs. The military determined that having it is necessary, and, frankly, that's what they are there to do, among other things. Lastly, I'm not going to invest myself in trying to gauge whether the military is right about needing it. I am wiling to "fry" the government's "fish," but not its "minnows."

It is not about military tactics or strategy, but political tactics and strategy.

Our current political tactics and strategy are just plain wrong; thus, our military can Only do what they can do, in "nexus 6 with zardoz and the incorrigibles".

What can we really hope to achieve with our warfare-State economy?

Erm, maybe, but this particular strike wiped out nearly 100 ISIS members. Wiping out terrorists isn't exactly a bad tactic in war against terrorism.

 

[danielpalos]

While I concur with some leftist positions and some rightist ones, the cost of the MOAB is not among any of the things that concern me. It costs what it costs. The military determined that having it is necessary, and, frankly, that's what they are there to do, among other things. Lastly, I'm not going to invest myself in trying to gauge whether the military is right about needing it. I am wiling to "fry" the government's "fish," but not its "minnows."

It is not about military tactics or strategy, but political tactics and strategy.

Our current political tactics and strategy are just plain wrong; thus, our military can Only do what they can do, in "nexus 6 with zardoz and the incorrigibles".

What can we really hope to achieve with our warfare-State economy?

Erm, maybe, but this particular strike wiped out nearly 100 ISIS members. Wiping out terrorists isn't exactly a bad tactic in war against terrorism.

Only in right wing fantasy. Why did we bother actually Invading the Middle East for, if all we really needed to do, was bomb them from the air.

 

[Norman]

While I concur with some leftist positions and some rightist ones, the cost of the MOAB is not among any of the things that concern me. It costs what it costs. The military determined that having it is necessary, and, frankly, that's what they are there to do, among other things. Lastly, I'm not going to invest myself in trying to gauge whether the military is right about needing it. I am wiling to "fry" the government's "fish," but not its "minnows."

It is not about military tactics or strategy, but political tactics and strategy.

Our current political tactics and strategy are just plain wrong; thus, our military can Only do what they can do, in "nexus 6 with zardoz and the incorrigibles".

What can we really hope to achieve with our warfare-State economy?

Erm, maybe, but this particular strike wiped out nearly 100 ISIS members. Wiping out terrorists isn't exactly a bad tactic in war against terrorism.

Only in right wing fantasy. Why did we bother actually Invading the Middle East for, if all we really needed to do, was bomb them from the air.

So Obama was 8 years of Right-Wing fantasy? He even got a RW peace prize!

Okay...

 

[danielpalos]

While I concur with some leftist positions and some rightist ones, the cost of the MOAB is not among any of the things that concern me. It costs what it costs. The military determined that having it is necessary, and, frankly, that's what they are there to do, among other things. Lastly, I'm not going to invest myself in trying to gauge whether the military is right about needing it. I am wiling to "fry" the government's "fish," but not its "minnows."

It is not about military tactics or strategy, but political tactics and strategy.

Our current political tactics and strategy are just plain wrong; thus, our military can Only do what they can do, in "nexus 6 with zardoz and the incorrigibles".

What can we really hope to achieve with our warfare-State economy?

Erm, maybe, but this particular strike wiped out nearly 100 ISIS members. Wiping out terrorists isn't exactly a bad tactic in war against terrorism.

Only in right wing fantasy. Why did we bother actually Invading the Middle East for, if all we really needed to do, was bomb them from the air.

So Obama was 8 years of Right-Wing fantasy? He even got a RW peace prize!

Okay...

and, the rich got their bailout, not blacks.

 

[Crixus]

You really can't make this up. Why not just wave in the white flag and accept that Trump has had you, at least that would be honest. Since when have hard leftists cared about the cost of government programs? Obama doubled the government debt from an insane level and not a word was uttered. If something, he was supposed to spend even more money...

Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?

Moab attack on Isis was a baffling choice in cold-blooded terms of cost

And to top it, they of course had to lie about the cost, multiplying it by over 20 times.

One MOAB Costs $16 Million, Not $314 Million

When the hard leftists decide to bring up the cost argument be it about MOABs or tomahawk's, you know they have got nothing. It's going to be painful 8 years for these folks.

Up next: The issue with Trump's wall is the cost, even if it's a drop in the bucket compared to Obama stimulus, which Obama was praised for.

<<Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?>> You are right, Norman. But I am puzzled why you don't feel that way about Americans though, as in healthcare, before and after school meals, Planned Parenthood, college costs, clean water, infrastructure...a whole myriad of domestic issues. I am aware that no matter how we spend our capital, somebody will have a complaint that it could have been done better. But if we paid $16 mil for a MOAB to take out 20-some terrorists, what's the calculation for a whole camp or town or city of them? And why is that a priority over domestic needs?

Health care failed. No sense in keeping it .


After school meals? Give me a break, the way you fix that issue is to get parents of these poor kids off their fat lazy ass's and feed their ******* kids.


Planned parenthood? Again, they can lobby local business and the city government for money. Their woman's issues are not mine so I should not have to pay for them. Cut that funding on the federal level to.


Clean water? Domestic issues ? Well, in every city run by democrats that promised to fix everything the cities and towns that elected hem are typically shit holes so spending on all he shit you mentioned is just stupid. There is no comparison in cost between making a hood rat or trailer trashes life easy and vaporizing 94 Haji turds.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You really can't make this up. Why not just wave in the white flag and accept that Trump has had you, at least that would be honest. Since when have hard leftists cared about the cost of government programs? Obama doubled the government debt from an insane level and not a word was uttered. If something, he was supposed to spend even more money...

Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?

Moab attack on Isis was a baffling choice in cold-blooded terms of cost

And to top it, they of course had to lie about the cost, multiplying it by over 20 times.

One MOAB Costs $16 Million, Not $314 Million

When the hard leftists decide to bring up the cost argument be it about MOABs or tomahawk's, you know they have got nothing. It's going to be painful 8 years for these folks.

Up next: The issue with Trump's wall is the cost, even if it's a drop in the bucket compared to Obama stimulus, which Obama was praised for.

<<Besides, isn't saving the human lives invaluable, surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?>> You are right, Norman. But I am puzzled why you don't feel that way about Americans though, as in healthcare, before and after school meals, Planned Parenthood, college costs, clean water, infrastructure...a whole myriad of domestic issues. I am aware that no matter how we spend our capital, somebody will have a complaint that it could have been done better. But if we paid $16 mil for a MOAB to take out 20-some terrorists, what's the calculation for a whole camp or town or city of them? And why is that a priority over domestic needs?

surely we can't measure the value of human lives saved by mere costs?

Oh, yes, we can, and we do. One'd have to be grossly naive to think that policy analysis and implementation decisions don't include calculating the estimated value of human life, even when that value isn't not openly attested to. (One'd have to equally naive to think that any policy maker is ever going to openly assert that human life's dollar value is considered. Policy making is politics, after all.) It's what "tolerable losses," opportunity cost analysis, etc. in part pertain to when policy makers (or, more accurately their analytical staff/advisors) weigh the cost of a host of actions on matter such as gun control legislation/regulation, communicable disease prevention, safety regulations, environmental "clean up" or protection, war actions, national security and defense strategy and tactics, speed limits, and more.

There are a variety of approaches to valuing a human life -- for instance, simple wage based approaches or behaviorally based ones -- and, as one might expect, which one is used in a given scenario, along with the discount rates chosen for the scenario, affects the cost-benefit estimates used in analyzing the scenario. For example, the OMB puts the value of a human life at something between $7M and $9M. Some methods put it at $1.5M or so. The EPA puts it at $9.1M. For the FDA, it's about $7.5M and for the Dept. of Transportation its around $6M. For each of the noted organizations, those are the upper limits, which is to say that the value they used is ostensible, that is, it's not the same value that's used (or implied) in every instance, even within a given organization.

For example, in 1987, when the U.S. government permitted states to raise the speed limit from 55 to 65 miles per hour, many states did so, and drivers saved time by driving about two miles per hour faster on average. However, fatality rates rose by about one-third. Overall, people in the United States saved about 125,000 hours of driving per lost life. At average wages, the trade-off between the time savings and the increased risk of fatalities suggested that state decision-makers were putting the value of a human life at about $1.5M. Yet other approaches and organizations assign a different value to human life.

As one can see from the example above, the human life value calculation need never be expressly stated; however, one with the most basic of math skills can readily and accurately calculate what value of human life is implicit in a given policy action. One need only be aware that a given action will result in lives lost and the rest is "plug and chug" math.

Is there uniform agreement about the value of a human life? No. How can there be when it's not something that policy makers are even willing to openly attest? All the same, rest assured the Dept. of State and DoD, for example, have some number (classified) they use to measure both the cost of U.S. human losses and the cost of enemy losses in military actions. The talk one hears about minimizing civilian casualties has more than just a humanitarian basis. I'll leave it to you to reason how such losses figure into military and international relief actions.

The examples given here pertain to the government, but the government isn't the only organization that places a specific dollar value on human life. Life and health insurance companies do so too, and one can be sure their values differ from those the government uses. One thing, however, is certain: lay individuals put far more value on a human life than do the empiricists who calculate that value and provide it or use it as an input to policy makers. Be that as it may, do not assume that in secular society there is no upper limit on the value of a human life.

I'll part with a simple "word problem." If the value of a human life is worth $8 million, how much, assuming a 7% discount rate, should we pay today to prevent an event that would result in the loss of ten billion human lives in 500 years? ~$163 is the answer. Try the problem with a low discount rate and you'll find that your calculator or MS Excel will only present the answer in scientific notation because they don't display enough zeroes. How about in 50 years? In 5 years?

Additional Reading and Examples:

• The Economic value of human life
• What Is The Value Of A Human Life?
  
• The Value of a Human Life: $129,000
  
• Putting A Price On Human Life
• The Value of Human Life
• What is a Human Life Worth

​