Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: denizen48 who wrote (440293)	12/13/2008 2:42:32 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574683

>> Because you say so? No, the NPP says so. But practically every credible source on the subject puts the price tag in the $600B range. If you're read the book, the $3T figure is obviously and utterly ridiculous. The idiot, only one year earlier, claimed it to be ONE trillion. Then, when nobody reacted to THAT, he comes back and claims it is THREE trillion. If that alone doesn't prove his incompetence to you, I don't know what would. We know what the cost of the war is within reasonable margins. Now, one thing the $600B price tag DOES NOT consider is that a substantial portion of those costs were essentially fixed in nature and would have been incurred with or without the war. For example, it is evident that hazard pay is part of a war cost premium, but the base salaries of military personnel were going to have to be paid either way, so they aren't technically a "cost of the war", rather, they are a cost of national defense which would have occurred with or without the war. The incremental cost of the war, which is probably the most sensible measure, is likely substantially under $500B.