DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on August 08, 2010, 09:41:36 AM

Title: Stiglitz wrong?
Post by: Michael Tee on August 08, 2010, 09:41:36 AM

http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/05/the-unaffordability-of-endless (http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/05/the-unaffordability-of-endless)

Article suggesting that the real cost of the wars started by Bush will be not $3 trill, but $7 or even $8 trill over the long haul.

Geeze, who ever knew you guys were so wealthy?

Title: Re: Stiglitz wrong?
Post by: Plane on August 09, 2010, 12:12:59 AM

I don't beleive you have any idea how wealthy we are.

I am not worried that Afganistan costs more than WWII , I am perplexed that such a statement has a shred of credability .

Title: Re: Stiglitz wrong?
Post by: sirs on August 09, 2010, 12:16:57 AM

Quote from: Plane on August 09, 2010, 12:12:59 AM

I am not worried that Afganistan costs more than WWII , I am perplexed that such a statement has a shred of credability .

Now, there's an understatement

Title: Re: Stiglitz wrong?
Post by: Michael Tee on August 09, 2010, 11:24:55 AM

<<I am not worried that Afganistan costs more than WWII , I am perplexed that such a statement has a shred of credability .>>


I understand.  You are confused.  Perhaps you should read the article again.  It doesn't claim that Afghanistan costs more than WWII.  Here's what it actually DOES claim:

<<That doesn't sound like much in the age of TARP, ObamaCare, and LeBron James, but it is. Adjusted for inflation, we have spent more on Iraq and Afghanistan than on any war in our history except World War II. >>

Feel better about it now?  Less "perplexed?"