Bruce said this:
If, for example, the C.G. is out on a "training cruise" to burn up
their diesel budget (and I can assure you that the various members of
the US Government do strive mightily to use ALL their budget) and
diverts to rescue someone the C.G. does not immediately apply for
additional budget to cover the cost of the rescue. Therefore there is
not additional cost to the US Government and the Taxpayer.

Then Dave replied:
My point is that it's silly to talk about the "additional cost" as the
cost
of the rescue. By your reasoning the multimillion salary GM pays its
CEO, as
well as the costs of its production facilities, interest on its debt,
salary
of accountants, etc. contribute nothing to the cost of the car you buy
from
them, because the company would pay a CEO, hold onto the facility pay the
accountants, etc. no matter how many cars it sells. The only cost of a
car
under that reasoning is the cost of materials and the variable hourly
cost
of labor producing the particular vehicle.

Gummint can perhaps fool its citizens with that kind of sloppy
thinking. In
business it leads straight to the bankruptcy court.

Hey Dave,
My first semester buisness professor taught us that analogy as the
erroneous argument that it is. Military organizations do not produce a
product to sell. They are not in business to make a profit. They only
spend money, because they are a 100-percent total-loss system. So your
argument using this analogy is flawed.
Red

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:33:44 -0500, Red said:
My first semester buisness professor taught us that analogy as the
erroneous argument that it is. Military organizations do not produce a
product to sell. They are not in business to make a profit. They only
spend money, because they are a 100-percent total-loss system. So your
argument using this analogy is flawed.

And Dave responded thusly:
Glad to hear that the cost of those soldiers, ships and planes is
nothing,
Red. Now can I get a check back from the gummint for all that money I
sent
them to pay for them?

I'm a bit confused by your response Dave. I was referring to your use of
an analogy to compare what is two completely different things. Your
response makes no sense. Business is in business to make a profit,
offset by expenses. Government does not make profit, it isn't designed
to make profit, and no idiot we have elected wants it to make a profit.
Comparing business to military expenditures is a falacious argument.
Red

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:19:14 -0500, Red said:
I'm a bit confused by your response Dave.
Along with a response that Dave has no rational answer for, and so he
cut it out to make the following pseudo response...

You got that right.

Well Dave at least we can all see you really don't have a clue about
what you were arguing about.

Red

If you want to throw barbs at one another, please resort to e-mail so that
the rest of us don't have to watch your childish behavior.

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

On 2008-01-08 12:13:02 -0500, Dave said:

Mark Twain was a wit. You rise, on occasion, to barely half that at best.

An utterly pedestrian effort, Charlie. Surely you can do better than that.

Frankly, I found that to be a bit more than pedestrian.

'Twas a well aimed shot in my book.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/