jason - 03/05/08 13:00
Fascinating. I have some Liberal friends who are pretty much the same way - one issue voter on the abortion argument. I really don't understand that mode of thinking. What, the economy, national security, taxes, foreign policy, none of that stuff matters?

Call me cynical, but I think the Democrats flipped strictly because of fealty to powerful special interests. A pro-lifer could never be the Democratic nominee today, and probably not in the near future either. They would get the usual treatment, get castigated, called anti-woman, a 1800's throwback, and that's on the nice end of things.

Regardless of this flip, yes I do think Reagan would have won, because Carter was so unpopular (Kennedy even mounted a challenge), and his administration was so ineffective. Abortion policy was the least of our concerns in those days. I think he's been a much more effective personality outside of US politics, for what it's worth.

I don't really disagree that a Moderate (Pro Life) Democrat could win handily these days. The opportunity is certainly out there.

james - 03/05/08 13:00
About half the country supports abortion, if both major parties did not support abortion and worked towards a constitutional amendment outlawing it a third party would have formed. Women make up 55%-60% of the democratic party. It is hard to imagine them remaining a viable party with much of their base disinterested.

Also, my mom used to be a Democrat. Then she found Jesus and became super Catholic. She was suckered into the GOP on abortion. Now she is a war hawk, thinks all people on welfare are black welfare queens, and is disappointed Mike Huckabee did not get the nomination despite the fact I told her she thinks everyone with AIDS should be sent to an island and homosexuals are just as 'bad' as necrophiles and zoophiles. I think abortion gets people into church and they later drag you to the alter.

But, it is certainly an interesting 'what if?'

metalpeter - 03/03/08 18:19
(e:jenks) (and others). Here is why athletes get paid so much money {my View). First of all you have the TV deal. It used to be that the NFL TV deal was devided equaly between all the NFL teams and that gave each team 1 million dollars over the sallery cap. The reason the NFL can charge so much is because of everone who watchs then sees the ads. Companies want there products to sell. Here is the kicker all you need is one thing to cause the NFL to fall apart. If anyone wants to kill pro sports do this: Prove that ads don't cause people to buy a certain product, I don't think it is possible. But once Bud, Pepsi/Lays, and all the other companies stop paying for ads then the TV companies don't make money that means the TV deal becomes a lot less that means player don't get paid as much. Yes there is other sources of money like shirts, hats, and Jackets. But again if the NFL wasn't on TV no one other then people at the stadium would watch so only those people would buy them. It is also a business for the owners also. They want a good team to bring people into the stadium. If the game gets blacked out I would assume they make less local money. The other thing to is on like some other sports Owners are part of the show in the NFL and often put winning before money (unlike the leafs and sabres) there should be a balance but sometimes it is hard to find. For example Jerry Jones (cowboys) often goes down on the sideline and stands next to the coach. It is the same reason why everyone on friends got that pay raise years ago. They all went to the network and said we want more money. The network was making so much money from the ads in that time slot they gave them all what they wanted and still killed it dollarwise. It is just the economics of the situtation. It is the same reason why Lacrosse Players don't get very much money. If you want to see a game you have to go to it live or watch it over the internet there is no TV contract so there isn't a lot of money coming in. As the league gets bigger this may change and ticket prices may rise.

drew - 03/03/08 15:07
I think he is a Manning type of QB. I also think that he is enough of a team player, that he might even give some back if the salary cap demands it.

The Rooneys will make back way more than they pay.

That's the thing that I don't like: everybody complains about player salaries, but nobody complains about exorbitant profit.

If a league is going to have a monopoly (as the major sports do), and if people are going to be willing to spend $100s on tickets, jerseys, etc (to say nothing of tv and luxury boxes and such) then a lot of money is going to come in, then there is going to be a lot of cash out there. Either we nationalize professional sports (which I don't think even the most liberal of Dems would do) or we live with things the way they are.

As much as I love football (and I do love football) I don't spend much money on it. If there were more people with my attitude, salary and profits would both be lower.

I wish I could find the article that studies pay multiples. Basically, if the highest paid employee makes more than, I think 25 times that of the lowest paid employee, the company will begin to function worse. What I like about a cap in multiples is that it could be good for everyone. CEO's could still make a ton of money, but not without paying their employees.

Of course, this would just lead to sports teams going to an all volunteer cleaning staff (or contracting things out), but limiting pay differential to an overly high number, say a multiple of 50 would be a good start.

jason - 03/03/08 14:33
What do you think about that figure, Drew? Sounds to me like this last season for him (which was damn good) got him his dough. Not like he was a bust or anything before that, but you would think that is Manning type of money.

jenks - 03/03/08 13:58
UGH.
Frankly, that makes me ill.
(not what you would do with the money drew- but the fact that athletes (or anyone for that matter) make so much money.)

How about they pay him 10 million (still more than enough to live comfortably) and give the rest to charity? lower ticket prices? anything.

Why on earth does this guy deserve that much money? i know, i know, b/c the market supports it.

again UGH.

mrmike - 03/03/08 13:37
Good for Big Ben, here's hoping his accountant is on his A game

mrmike - 03/02/08 15:01
They got it right. I'm all for passion ahead of precision.

Most enjoyable Monday night I've had in some time. Thanks again for instigating.

jenks - 03/02/08 18:17
holy crap, I'm the #2 commentor?!
whoa, the #2 comments received?
Hmm. I was just thinking the other day "I haven't gotten many comments lately" and was feeling unloved. Guess I shouldn't!

Maybe b/c i haven't been posting much. duh.

metalpeter - 02/29/08 18:39
When you have time do a little bit of math you have based on the top bar 143 journals and 25,094 views so that comes out to about 175 views per post. To me that says a lot of people read your posts and check up on the comments made.

You have 557 not counting this one in comments. By my math that averages out to almost four comments per journal.

Dude why so few Pictures? Kidding there. Based on your first stat I listed that means a lot of people are looking at your journal. Your rank in views in your mind are low. But the thing is that you haven't been here that long so you don't have the numbers yet. I myself know I have a lot of views but I have a couple years head start on you. Assuming you keep posting you will pass others and so will other people. Like (e:paul) said it is really a timing thing or how long you have been posting. I'm going to have to find the stats and see where I'm at.

paul - 02/29/08 14:29
It really is just a time thing. We get way more views now that in the past, but you have to add a lot of years of views onto some of those. The site started in 2003. Also some people have external links that drive more views to their blog entries.

Maybe I will do a statistics view for this year alone. I am sure you would be much higher up.

mrmike - 02/29/08 13:35
or writing the ten things about the u2 movie post

drew - 02/29/08 11:44
Yeah. I kind of surprised myself with the "return on investment."

I think I meant it a little bit more abstractly. I mean, other values, like freedom, democracy and security are worthwhile, too.

The problem, of course, is that our war took a country that had very little of the above values, and made it worse. Now the administration is celebrating less deaths as a mark of success. Before the war, there was no al quaida in iraq. We have expanded terrorist safe havens, sparked a civil war (and an invasion from Turkey), depleted our own readiness to handle threats and strained our economy (not to mention our soldiers' families) and hurt our world standing.

And it seems the more we do, the worse it gets.

I understand that we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people, but I am beginning to think that we are like the bumbling oaf, who in his zeal to fix one thing, breaks three more. At some point, you just throw that guy out--regardless of what has been done in the past.

And I am not happy that my country has been reduced to oafishness. I wish it were otherwise. I am not an "America-hater." I remember how we once did better (i.e. the Marshall plan) and long for such a return.

But can we do it in Iraq? Can we really build something positive? These people have long memories, and in recent memory we:

a. Gave weapons to Sadaam, who used them against his own people.

b. Stood down when we promised that we would support a popular uprising against Sadaam.

c. Invaded without the support of the UN.

d. Installed a president that nobody wanted.

e. Took over palaces and government buildings, and began construction on large bases.

f. Tortured prisoners.

Now, if you had money to put behind the re-building of Iraq, would you put it behind an American effort? Maybe five years ago one could argue that we were the right people for the job, but we have squandered every last bit of goodwill and trust.

I don't expect a return. I expect us to face facts, cut our losses, and walk away from the table. The only thing worse than taking a gamble and losing is to lose everything.

And giving up may be the best thing that we can do. Vietnam certainly had problems when we left (and still does), but not the problems they had when we were there. And amazingly, greater reform came in our absence. Is it perfect? No. But neither are we. I'll take pretty good at a low cost (in terms of money and lives) over spending everything striving for perfection.

joshua - 02/29/08 09:25
Although this is unrelated, I'm going to recommend that people read Tommy Franks' autobiography. Its called "American Soldier," and a chunk of the book is dedicated to explaining the insiders view on how the initial fight in Iraq was planned... from the words of the guy who lead it all.

(e:drew) - Ok - I think we can agree on those points... no question about that. You made me think very carefully when you asked about when we can expect a return on our investment in Iraq. You stunned me for a second! I think thats hard to quantify. When we invested in Japan after WWII it took decades to reap the benefits, but ultimately in the long run our investment yielded a strong economic power, a political ally and a friend. As during the Marshall Plan, Iraq will be expected to pay back at least part of the money we are spending on their rebuilding. Also, as during the Marshall Plan, I expect that Iraq will only pay back a small fraction... but to be honest I'm okay with that as I'm okay with us forgiving Germany the large bulk of billions of dollars after we helped rebuild their country. Ultimately though I have to ask - when we talk about a return on investment in Iraq, what do we really mean?

(e:ajay) to answer your question - was it right for us to bankroll the reconstruction of Europe after our demolition of Europe during WWII, or should we have told them to piss off? America has a history of rebuilding that which we destroy. But to the larger point that you are driving at - the premise is flawed because there is a presupposition that the money spent on the war is somehow interchangeable with items from the platform of education and healthcare. Like I said, had the war not occurred, the money simply wouldn't have been spent. Besides, funding in American government simply doesn't work that way on any level.

Simply because you think the Iraq War is unnecessary does not mean that every single spending item relating to the war should be scrutinized and compared with what the money could be doing elsewhere - I find the idea that we should leave Iraq in the cold after we devastated their country INCREDIBLY naive, cold-hearted and morally bankrupt... and patently against American history and governmental and political protocol.

You may be interested in knowing that a side-effect of my trip to your city is my nightly listening of KGO before I go to bed. Of course, its dominated by liberal ideology but I listen because a) they are thoughtful about other peoples points, even if they disagree, and b) they let anybody and everybody speak their mind. Its like a political version of George Noory's show. The reason why I bring it up is to suggest to you that I've already heard your arguments from other liberals on your local station, and I was surprised to hear fellow liberals check their bretheren when they brought those points up. I don't know if you listen, since I have no idea how much you drive or if you ever listen to talk radio, but you have a good one in KGO and I'd recommend it. Honestly, the best I've heard for that matter, in any city I've visited.

I'm not outraged by the cost of the Iraq war - wars are expensive. When the initial estimate of the cost of the war was considered, its obvious to me and everybody else that they did not consider very carefully what would have to be spent after we removed their government. Whether or not this was necessary is another question, but at this point arguing about the costs of an unnecessary war is pointless. We've made the decision to do it, we're there, we've spent unbelievable resources. We have to deal in reality, not in what could or should have been. There is no way to erase this or pretend that it didn't happen.

The irony though, (e:ajay), is that ultimately we agree on the point that we should seriously be concentrating on our own well-being here in America. Its time to worry less about protecting other peoples' skins and work more on fixing our own problems.

metalpeter - 02/28/08 20:50
I think the real cost of the war can never be counted and never be figured out. I myself like think man all that money they spent there would be no more homeless people and they could pay Illegal Aliens to go back to there country (maybe even with bombs to blow up there country) they could fix up poor little uneducated towns. People with out medical care could have it. But that isn't really true as mentioned by both (e:jason) and (e:josh) I think. As stated that is all borrowed money. But that being said the debt has to be repaid some how and to who do we owe it to and what about the interest. But the stuff that wasn't borrowed could have gone to other things And I assume that is a good amount of money. But where this really Hurts America is that at sometime we have to try and pay back money we don't have plus interest. That might not only hurt it could make us be the army for some other country that doesn't feel like fighting. If we owe all this money how do we have money to do other stuff. Oh yeah that is right we Barrow more that we can't pay back. But there is another way that I think most people don't see how this hurts America. IT tells the American People that it is ok to spend money you don't have. Yes I do think that credit card companies Corrupt and have things set up so that a $100 purchase in the end could cost a couple thousand dollars (I don't mean one on its own I mean a bunch I was just using that to show how much money they make with interest and all kinds of charges). If the Government can spend money it doesn't have why can't I. Well what happens if everyone does that is No one has anymoney and all the places they owe money to don't get there money and then loaning places go out of business and the entire country becomes so poor that the great depression could look like a nice time. I'm not saying this will happen to that extreme but the Government sure sends a message that will make the middle class poor and the poor even poorer and then if they don't buy from the rich the become the middle class in terms of money level eventually.

jason - 02/28/08 18:32
Thanks a bunch, Ajay for clarifying. I had thought you were trying to antagonize. I really appreciate that.

Personally, I think we have a moral responsibility to rebuild what we destroy. I don't know what kind of real numbers can be reasonably gleaned from this right now - I really wonder if these people will be made fools of or not in the long run - but I do think that a huge chunk of the costs would be reconstruction costs. I could be wrong, but it seems to me it would be a large number.

I will also say that the current Republican Party no longer believes in fiscal restraint. This and the cultural junk from the Dobsonites lead me to leave the party. We are no strangers to deficit spending (J. Carter) but Drew is right in that there has to be some kind of payoff down the road. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to question whether there has been a payoff in this case. I don't really think we're any safer as a result of this war.

ajay - 02/28/08 17:45
(e:Jason) , I wasn't trying to pick on you; just saying that Conservatives are deafeningly silent on this colossal waste of money.

Let me take the extreme for a minute and ask (e:Joshua) : if spending $X on the Buffalo schools system is bad, then why is spending $X on the Baghdad sewer system good? At least the money spent in Buffalo stays here; the money spent in Baghdad goes into their Swiss bank accounts!

In other words: where's your outrage at this waste of money that is the Iraq war?

Don't get me wrong: the Buffalo school system is very wasteful. I don't deny it, and I agree with you that it is funded lavishly, with nothing much to show for it. But your criticism comes across as just one of those shrill partisan rhetoric when you don't address the much bigger waste that's Iraq.

As for the $7M figure. The average value assigned to the life of a person who died in the 9/11 tragedies was $1.8M . And our soldiers are really young people; the value of their lives (however macabre this may sound) is surely higher than $1.8M ?

drew - 02/28/08 15:38
Sure enough Joshua. Your last paragraph is right on. We can't see what would have happened differently, but it seems like we can agree to this:

a. We've spent a lot.

b. We're on the hook for more.

c. The opportunity costs are real, but impossible to measure.

I am not getting into the "what could it have been spent on" question. Because it is mostly borrowed money, I think it should not have been spent at all. If, however, we are going to borrow money to spend it, it makes sense to invest it in something that will have future dividends. I know this was the intention of the war planners, but it does not seem to have worked.

How long must we keep investing before we have a right to expect a return?

joshua - 02/28/08 15:32
I assume you are referring to the information contained in the book written by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, or perhaps the article posted here :::link::: written by the same authors.

For the record, at least as far as this book's $3t estimate is concerned, there was only one Nobel Laureate involved! Nobel Laureates such as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and the esteemed terrorist Arafat make the award seem less valuable to me. Just a personal thing though - people can feel free to love Nobel and I won't criticize them for it.

Just as an example, as you can read in the article (or the book), they switch the $400,000 out for a $7m figure that the authors state the government values a life for health and safety purposes... under what condition they do not mention. This is not a real cost - this is an imagined cost that would not be paid out to soldiers' families. How honest is that?

This is followed by a procession of budget parsing for what might have been spent had the war not occurred, which is utterly impossible to estimate to any degree of accuracy. This sort of absolute non-sense is exactly why the estimate isn't credible. It reminds me of Al Franken and his self-described and supposed bulletproof factoids in his books. It is a sham. More than that, to what end does this book serve a purpose? When somebody releases a book littered with examples I just highlighted I think the purpose is transparent.

Suffice it to say that I think the number is utter bullshit. The government, up to this point, has spent about $800b on the war. Imagining costs that would have been instead of what was is no way to formulate an opinion on economics let alone policy. There is no way that this could have been done without major presuppositions, error or flat out made up numbers plugged in as "estimates."

I think the truth is that the money being spent is obviously larger than what is being stated, and I also think we'll never know the real cost. Would the money have had better uses elsewhere? Maybe, but what is lost on almost everybody is that had the war not occurred, the money likely wouldn't have been spent at all. This is the fatal flaw in an exercise in trying to wipe out what has been spent on the Iraq war - they frame it in an imaginary context.

jason - 02/28/08 15:00
And, (e:Ajay), I'll tell you what, and I'm only going to say this once before becoming very rude and disagreeable, if you do not put words into my mouth (He would say X Y and Z about this and he feels A, B, C about how the money is spent now), then I promise not to put words in your mouth, and I guarantee they won't be pretty. I can't believe I have to say this again, but you don't get to define what I think. Ok?

jason - 02/28/08 14:57
Something that's missing here among all the pie in the sky talk about what can and can't be done with that 3 trillion dollars is that, in the real world, if we had spent that 3 trillion on all the goody-good "poverty solution" type of things.....we still would be up to our noses in debt and as irresponsible with the money as if we had spent it on bombs. It's sort of a moot point.

drew - 02/28/08 14:43
The number isn't based on what the money will be worth in the future, it's about costs that we have to pay that aren't being accounted for now. Costs like replacing equipment and caring for injured/disabled soldiers. These are commitments that we are making (just like union contracts) that will oblige us until the last Iraq veteran dies.

Of course, it is hard to imagine exactly what this will cost, and the authors admit as much. However, these Nobel Laureate economist's best guess is that it is in the 3-9 trillion dollar range. Given the cost of health care, this is not an unreasonable expectation. Buying new military hardware isn't cheap, either. It is a far cry from "the Iraq war will pay for itself."

Now, on education, you are dead on. It's not about money. Money helps, but no amount of money is going to make a difference in an environment where education isn't valued.

joshua - 02/28/08 14:08
$3T is a ridiculous and incredibly ill-conceived number. This would be like accusing a person of spending future value of assets when in fact the net present value is what is being spent. Do we call your $20 bill you are about to spend "tomorrow's $100 bill being spent today, based on projections and assumptions about how much that money would have grown and other potential fiscal benefits that we cannot predict?" Bottom line - this is being circulated to scare Americans, and its incredibly disingenuous.

Four months ago the number was under $1T. Two months later it was $1.5T. Now the number has been proclaimed by people (almost all whom have agendas) to be more. While it may be logical to assume that the number would only get larger and not smaller, what sort of logic or place in reality could an assumption like that be based on?

GWB is not conservative, to answer your question (e:james).

(e:ajay) - the problem with education has never been about money. Its been about the idiots who have been making the decisions on how that money is spent. You can also lay the blame directly at the feet of those who run teachers' unions. It has NEVER!!! been about the students. Buffalo's school system budget is $800m. The city of Buffalo itself? $300m. To suggest that funding is a problem with education has long since been debunked. I have news for you - if $16k per year per student isn't enough to make it work in DC, and if 80% of a cool BILLION isn't enough to make the schools in the city of Buffalo resemble a functional school system, the problem is not and never has been the money.

Its ironic to me that the city of Buffalo is suffering from the same problem that GM is currently dealing with. A vast part of the city's school budget is spent on future retirement benefits. Why GM will exist and the school system will fail is that GM has currency in reserve to save themselves from the shockingly poor union deals, and the school system does not.

But that isn't really it. Why you are wrong, (e:ajay), is that ultimately liberals feel that if money wasn't being spent on unnecessary project A, that it should be circulated to spend extra money on projects B and C. The pitfall of such logic is that ultimately the money doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the people who the government took the money from in taxes. Note that this does not imply redistribution of wealth, which is an ill-conceived concept on its on merit.

Liberal ideologues don't believe in giving it back to the people who've paid it - they either completely dream up ways to spend the money that does not belong to them under the guise that it is the "government's money" or they attempt to redistribute the wealth to people who otherwise did not earn it themselves. Socialism will never happen in America, (e:ajay). Americans believe in personal liberty, which is diametrically opposite to liberal economic thought. Its time to move on.

drew - 02/28/08 12:31
I think (e:jason) was pretty clear. He said, "Even without the war, I would resign myself to higher taxes."

ajay - 02/28/08 12:28
Notice the resignation in (e:Jason)'s comment?

Now here's the irony. If the same amount had been spent on making America a better place (on education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.) by a Democrat president, then (e:Jason) would be all up in arms about the waste of money.

You can't spell "conservative" with a "con"...

james - 02/28/08 11:12
I thought we had a conservative president?

Don't they, you know, like balanced budgets? And junk?

Thank you for the visual. It is pretty sobering.

Think how much poverty that money could have relieved.

Man...

jason - 02/28/08 10:50
In many ways, the current generation in charge is already spending "our" generation's money. They admit it. Even without the war, I would probably have to resign myself to higher taxes. On top of that we have the money spent on the war and related expenses. This is not going to be easy. It's a ton of cash. It's something we have to prepare for. I don't really believe that the middle class is going to be exempt from this. I just don't. Politicians lie.

mrmike - 02/28/08 09:57
a trillion here a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money. Seriously, it makes me think whoever the next president is, they are a one timer as this is such a mess and given the scope will overshadow pretty much anything else they do for next few years.

Hate paying taxes, hate knowing that my childrens childrens children will have this hanging over them.

fellyconnelly - 02/28/08 09:55
ayeeee! thats a lot of cash!