Then and Now

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
A tad harsh to blame the Iraqi population IMO.

All they have to do is to leave peacefully with their neighbors down the street rather than murdering them. This isn't asking a whole lot.

[DirtyMartini]

With regard to the op's question -- would Americans still have supported the war if they knew it was going to cost X trillion bucks instead of 60 billion --

I think they could have estimated that the war would cost 500 million, billion, trillion, zillion, illion, illion, illion dollars, and the US populace wouldn't care at all. Numbers that large are completly imcomprehensible. How can joe sixpack comprehend the efffect on the economy that will result from spending 3 trillion rather than 50 billion? Now, if someone said "I'm sorry, we thought your McDonald double cheeseburger was going to cost $0.99, but in reality it has cost us $12.50" now that makes some sense.

[Krill]

really $20,000 to a family of 4? Christ, I'd be pissed off if I found that out...that's a little less than half thedebt I'd get from a student loan...

...****, I wonder how much it cost the UK government...

[Patroklos]

Well, since most of the tax burden falls on the rich, your average family of four won't be paying 20K.

Manipulating numebrs if fun

[Krill]

Nice claim. Got any proof though?

[Patroklos]

The US tax code perhaps?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf

[Krill]

So none of the money came from borrowing at all?

[Patroklos]

Ummmm, who ever said anything concerning "borrowing?"

They got that number by dividing their speculative 1,500,000,000,000 by our rounded population of 300,000,000 and getting $5,000.00 per American citizen, multiply by four to get $20,000.00 per family of four.

Nice and tidy eh? They forget that the top 20% of our population earnings wise pays for 80% of our federal income tax. Guess who things like capital gains, corporate taxes and the like nominally fall on? So their little experiment in division fails cursory examination.

[Krill]

So...all of the money spent has been raised by taxes on the population and on businesses...and not a single cent was borrowed to pay for the war?

[Krill]

I call BS.

[Lorizael]

Of course money was borrowed. But you don't even need to consider that point in order to disprove the 20k figure.

[Krill]

I never claimed that figure was correct. All I said was that I'd be unhappy if I found out I'd paid that figure to support the war

The only thing no one has bothered to think about yet is what effect the borrowing has had on the economy, and who is paying what because of those effects to suppport the war. There is alot more to the financial side of the war than saying "It cost X amount, but we said Y years ago it would cost Z amount".

[Patroklos]

Why not just say what you're thinking?

It doesn't matter how the money was raised (borrowing or straight taxes), bar a complete economic collapse the majority of the actual cost borne by individuals will be through their taxes.

[Krill]

I get more posts this way.

[Arrian]

To answer the poll question:

All of the above. I'm not sure what the meaningful distinction is between "honest mistake" and "bureacratic incompetence" other than one's own personal politics. I'm furious about it, because to me it is a case of overwhelming incompetence (from people who were so smugly confident of their brilliance, no less) that has led directly to a huge mess.

There was also, I'm sure, some "spinning" of the numbers. Everybody does that (if you have a range of estimates and you think the high end is scary, you probably are going to put out the low end ones, aren't you?). I'm not condoning that, but I don't think it's exceptional.

-Arrian