Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In VP debate Cheney said Edwards was mistaken about the $200billion

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
candy331 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:20 AM
Original message
In VP debate Cheney said Edwards was mistaken about the $200billion
spent in Iraq, that it was actually $120 billion. Now I could have sworn that all I have heard basically is the $200 billion and counting, was that a misspeak by Edwards or a play on the numbers by Cheney, with the media grabbing it to counter Cheney's lie about not meeting Edwards? Does anyone know the actual amount that has already been spent and more that is already allocated?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. $$$
What I have heard that it is over $200 billion allocated
and over $120billion spent so far
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bmbmd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Eighty billion in Afghanistan
so that doesn't count...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. What the pundits have been saying is...
...that the $200 billion includes the money allocated for next year.

I think, myself, that even if that's true, it's a moot point. The cost of the war is not going to be less than $200 billion (even if not all of it has been spent yet), and therefore it's $200 billion that could have been spent otherwise had we not gone to war -- which was Edwards' point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
4. Depends on which numbers you look at.
Edited on Thu Oct-07-04 11:27 AM by Ready4Change
Both have figures to support their statements, so neither is really incorrect or lying. It's just a matter of what categories of costs you include.

On edit: I feel a need to add that I give more credence to the 200 billion number. After all, Kerry voted against an 87 billion bill, and Bush later went to Congress asking for, what was the figure? 65 billion? That's 152 billion earmarked right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. Big picture missed: How much did Bush SAY it was going to cost?
Didn't Bush say it was going to be all paid for with the oil from Iraq and it would only cost 1 billion dollars anyway? If he did, he's off by a factor of 120, so even if the full 200 billion hasn't been spent, Bush is still a liar and the resources allocated are still far more than what this war was sold on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
6. It is kind of like buying a car and giving a $1000 down
The cost of the car was not a thousand dollars even though that is all you paid up front. 200 billion is a very conservative figure at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nyhuskyfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. Sam Seder had a great analogy
If you put $1,000 down on a car and agree to spend $300 a month for the next five years, would you tell anyone that the car cost you $1,000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. The repigs are playing games w/ numbers
Edited on Thu Oct-07-04 11:29 AM by Viking12
If you paid $150k for your house but only put $15K down that doesn't mean you've only spent $15k -- you've committed to spending another large chunk of change and that should be taken into account. Saying that we haven't "spent" $200B is technically accurate but it is not the truth - we have to date spent $120B and we have committed more than $80B++ for a total of $200B. Look for that number to continue to grow as time passes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. $80 Billion is already allocated,
...so it can't be spent on something else.

Say you're buying a car. Let's reduce this money to a car's level. it's a $20,000 car. You bring $12,000 to the dealer. You have to finance $8,000 to pay it off, right? You might have already paid $12,000 for it, but that doesn't mean that the car is worth $12,000. That's what Cheney want's you to believe. That since $12,000 was already paid for the car, that's all that was necessary, and GM credit will just forget about the extra $8,000. We still owe $80 BILLION, and we have to pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
10. so lets set an example, tomorrow night
kerry can say number is 120.............we added the 80 from afghanistan. it was a package deal. and then say, k.........has cost 120 billion so far. that hurts too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbond56 Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-07-04 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
11. take a step back.
The 120 billion is already spent. Which is the smallest number you can use and still be technically correct. If your Responsible, understand budgets, and want to be Honest with the American people use the amount budgeted. It is to early to determine whether 200 billion will reflect the actual amount spent. Judging from all that enormously hard work the administration did planing this war, I think it will be higher. As of today the 200 number includes some money to fight the terrorist that attacked us at home. I think that amount is somewhere around 20b. Makes you wonder why Osama is still on the lamb.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC