3 ms·

I don't disagree with the general premise of this article but I find it ironic that Friedman says "Cooper also pointed out that, according to the Congressional

by zone411 16y ago

I don't disagree with the general premise of this article but I find it ironic that Friedman says "Cooper also pointed out that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the entire war effort in Afghanistan was costing about $190 million a day and that President Bill Clinton’s 1998 trip to Africa with 1,300 people and of roughly similar duration, cost, according to the Government Accountability Office and adjusted for inflation, about $5.2 million a day," without mentioning that this CBO report specifically excludes the costs of the Secret Service and that the security costs after the 9/11 are likely significantly greater than what they were previously. $5.2 million/day is likely just as bad a number as $200 million/day, yet Friendman repeats is without stipulations, just like Bachmann did.

Retric 16y ago
How on earth can you think that spending 40x as much money is just as bad?
- zone411 16y ago
  You missed the point. The estimate is just as bad. I wasn't talking about the amount of money spent.
cwp 16y ago
If you want to dispute the numbers, fine. But it's ridiculous to accuse Friedman of the same dishonesty as Bachmann. First, he explicitly said he doesn't know the real cost of the trip, and explained how he arrived at his estimate. Second, his source is a lot more authoritative than Bachmann's: the GAO, a department of the U.S. government whose raison d'être is to monitor government spending, vs an unnamed Indian official cited by an Indian reporter. Third, he provides context that helps his readers understand the scale of the numbers being thrown around - are we really to believe that this trip is spending money faster than the war effort in Afghanistan? Do we really think Obama is spending 40 times as much as Clinton did for a similar trip? Friedman may well be wrong, but I'll take his number over Bachmann's any day of the week.
- zone411 16y ago
  No, it's not any better. This estimate is useless, because of the things I mentioned. The Secret Service costs are likely the bulk of the spending, so unless they release them, we won't know the real numbers involved. Clinton did not spend 40 times less than $200 million/day. I'm not sure why you don't understand my point. Friedman cited a falsehood without saying that it was untrue. Clinton's trip did not cost $5.2 million a day. The CBO clearly specifies that the SS costs were excluded multiple times. Friedman did not mention this, so he is just as bad as Bachmann.
  - ezy 16y ago
    When (attempting to) think critically, you can't just choose to ignore the entire context. And when you're talking about both the kinds of sources and the order of magnitude or so difference, one estimate is not "just as useless". One estimate is based on the retelling of a made up number by some anonymous source accompanied, with other information that was verifiably not true. Friedman's estimate is based on real honest to god numbers produced by the accounting agency of the government in question minus an unknown amount. He did not mention the missing amount for SS, true. But given the context, I can see why he may have not -- it does't really matter when you're at least an order off [1]. Drawing a false equivalence here is not thinking critically. [1] The budget for the entire year for SS protection was 689M in 2008 [http://whitehousetransitionproject.org/resources/briefing/Patterson-Cost%20of%20WH.pdf http://whitehousetransitionproject.org/resources/briefing/Pa...].

by zone411 16y ago

Retric 16y ago

How on earth can you think that spending 40x as much money is just as bad?

zone411 16y ago
You missed the point. The estimate is just as bad. I wasn't talking about the amount of money spent.

cwp 16y ago

If you want to dispute the numbers, fine. But it's ridiculous to accuse Friedman of the same dishonesty as Bachmann. First, he explicitly said he doesn't know the real cost of the trip, and explained how he arrived at his estimate. Second, his source is a lot more authoritative than Bachmann's: the GAO, a department of the U.S. government whose raison d'être is to monitor government spending, vs an unnamed Indian official cited by an Indian reporter. Third, he provides context that helps his readers understand the scale of the numbers being thrown around - are we really to believe that this trip is spending money faster than the war effort in Afghanistan? Do we really think Obama is spending 40 times as much as Clinton did for a similar trip? Friedman may well be wrong, but I'll take his number over Bachmann's any day of the week.

zone411 16y ago
No, it's not any better. This estimate is useless, because of the things I mentioned. The Secret Service costs are likely the bulk of the spending, so unless they release them, we won't know the real numbers involved. Clinton did not spend 40 times less than $200 million/day. I'm not sure why you don't understand my point. Friedman cited a falsehood without saying that it was untrue. Clinton's trip did not cost $5.2 million a day. The CBO clearly specifies that the SS costs were excluded multiple times. Friedman did not mention this, so he is just as bad as Bachmann.
- ezy 16y ago
  When (attempting to) think critically, you can't just choose to ignore the entire context. And when you're talking about both the kinds of sources and the order of magnitude or so difference, one estimate is not "just as useless". One estimate is based on the retelling of a made up number by some anonymous source accompanied, with other information that was verifiably not true. Friedman's estimate is based on real honest to god numbers produced by the accounting agency of the government in question minus an unknown amount. He did not mention the missing amount for SS, true. But given the context, I can see why he may have not -- it does't really matter when you're at least an order off [1]. Drawing a false equivalence here is not thinking critically. [1] The budget for the entire year for SS protection was 689M in 2008 [http://whitehousetransitionproject.org/resources/briefing/Patterson-Cost%20of%20WH.pdf http://whitehousetransitionproject.org/resources/briefing/Pa...].