Jesse Taylor points out a big problem with factcheck.org:
Posted by DeLong at October 5, 2004 08:30 PM | TrackBackPandagon: 200 Billion?: The "factchecks" on the $200 billion question don't make much sense to me. We can't count the war as costing what it's going to cost because the money's been earmarked to be spent, but hasn't been spent yet. By that standard, my car cost $622.
They're also asleep at the wheel on the Cheney profiting from Halliburton question:
http://www.populist.com/03.19.burns.html
Posted by: ogmb at October 5, 2004 08:42 PMKerry-Edwards say "$200 Billion and counting". This is not accurate. Pandagon could accurately say "my car has cost $622 and counting", but not "$20000 and counting" for a $20000 car that has not been paid off yet.
Go Kerry!
Posted by: a-ro at October 5, 2004 08:45 PMSo my car does not cost 622? Aargh. what have I done!
But wait. I may follow Taylor's logic and add my next installment, 207 dollars, to the cost of my car -- which is leased. But I may also decide that 622 dollars is exactly the cost I am ready to bear, so I will default on the lease agreement. Voila! The cost is flat 622.
Similarly, we can walk away from Iraq at any moment with even less trouble. I do not expect any pestering phone calls, nor demerits to our credit rating.
_____________________
Some people would carp that under these scenarios we perhaps spend less money but we surely waste every penny that we managed to sped. Such objections do not deserve an answer, but being fair-minded I put them here as a footnote.
Posted by: Piotr at October 5, 2004 08:58 PMSo my car does not cost 622? Aargh. what have I done!
But wait. I may follow Taylor's logic and add my next installment, 207 dollars, to the cost of my car -- which is leased. But I may also decide that 622 dollars is exactly the cost I am ready to bear, so I will default on the lease agreement. Voila! The cost is flat 622.
Similarly, we can walk away from Iraq at any moment with even less trouble. I do not expect any pestering phone calls, nor demerits to our credit rating.
_____________________
Some people would carp that under these scenarios we perhaps spend less money but we surely waste every penny that we managed to sped. Such objections do not deserve an answer, but being fair-minded I put them here as a footnote.
Posted by: Piotr at October 5, 2004 08:59 PMHey, if i buy a house with no money down, then sell it before I pay the first mortgage installment... wahoo!!! Man, now I see why all the businessmen are Republicans...
Posted by: Gregory at October 5, 2004 09:25 PMSpeaking of checking facts...
www.factcheck.com
yeah, baby, yeah.
Posted by: Gregory at October 5, 2004 09:29 PMGetting the administration to give honest numbers on a wide variety of matters in the last two years has been difficult. The true cost of the Medicare Prescription Bill is just one case where we were given false numbers. What I want to know about the war in Iraq is whether the Bush Administration is including the cost of replacing all the cruise missiles, helicopters, tanks, etc. that have been used in the war?
Posted by: Craig at October 5, 2004 11:04 PMBob Somerby (dailyhowler.com) has criticized factcheck.org in the past:
http://tinyurl.com/6sz44
I have routinely argued that Brooks is a hack. Part of the problem of any fact check by the media wanting to appear unbiased if they have to work hard to find the Kerry lies. Then, as a result, "big lies" of one candidate are lumped together with "small lies" from the other(forgive the assumption that lies even took place). Lies of policy are anitethical to democracy, and these are what Bush-Cheney do, not Kerry Edwards. But "I'm happy to be here" when you're not is now the eqivalent of Saddaam attacked us. Apples, oranges. Ya Know?
Posted by: Dr. C at October 6, 2004 05:07 AMa-ro:
200 Billion and counting is accurate. Bush & Co. have already annuounced that they will be back for another 50 billion later this year. Any bets that's the last one?
Posted by: Jonathan Goldberg at October 6, 2004 06:00 AMPandagon is priceless. Yes, I CAN buy a house in West LA for only $70,000!
Posted by: pgl at October 6, 2004 06:05 AM$200 thousand million may be the current appropriation. Further funds could be reprogrammed from other appropriations if needed and approved by Congress. The $200 Billion is only the current WAG. The current costs of security are being exceeded. The looming facility reconstruction and added Iraq Security Forces will probably break the budget. (Then there are always the 2005 Budget surprises.) IMHO
Posted by: don majors at October 6, 2004 09:34 AM