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