Was it reasonable and prudent for the Federal government to spend $50 million on a Y2K crisis center?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

In 1999, the federal budget was roughly $1.8 trillion. For the sake of argument, we'll ignore the OMB fiction that Social Security is an "off budget" expenditure. The $50 million Y2K crisis center was roughly .0028 percent of federal spending.

Let's translate this into terms the average family can understand. In 1998, the median family income in America was roughly $39,000. If you wanted to build your own "home version" of the Y2K crisis center using the same percentage of your budget (before taxes), how much would you spend? About $1.08. Yes, that's one dollar and eight cents. To me, it looks like home version would consist of a king-sized Hershey bar and a pack of matches filched from a local bar.

The federal Y2K center served the population of the U.S. Oh, let's call it 273 million at the end of 1999. This means the Y2K crisis center cost U.S. taxpayers about 18 cents a head. The average family size was 3.18... we'll round it to three. The "home version" of the Y2K crisis center cost about 36 cents a person... roughly twice the "gov't" price.

Some doomers will want to muddy the waters by talking about how much money the gov't spent on remediation. Apples and oranges. Fixing the Y2K problem is an entirely different matter than preparing for a Y2K "crisis."

A better argument is that much of the "preps" purchased would have been bought anyway. I am relatively sure some of the Y2K crisis center components were reused. If memory serves, there were a fair number of computers that I am sure made there way into alternative uses. Still, some of the money was clearly spent and can never be recovered. On the other hand, I will wager the serious pessimists spent more than $1.08 in gasoline making trips to Costco (or the equivalent).

Was the federal money spent on a Y2K center was unreasonable? It depends how you choose to analyze it. From a federal spending perspective, $50 million is the kind of change you find between the cushions in your couch. The gov't decision to buy Y2K "insurance" was the similar to the average family spending a buck on Y2K "preps."

If I argue the gov't was imprudent, I am hoisted on my own petard. I spent a greater percentage of my annual budget buying Ed Yourdon's lousy book than the gov't did assembling its crisis center.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), August 29, 2000


Ken, I really feel sorry for the town you are "managing" and the money you must be wasting with that attitude.

If the crisis center wasn't needed, it shouldn't have been built. Has nothing to do with comparative costs.

Probably has far more to do with what .gov agenda really was.

-- Whatever (who@car.es), August 29, 2000.

So ... the "standard" as to whether one went "overboard" with Y2K depends on THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR BUDGET? Nothing to do with whether one lives on a farm or in the city, is single or has a family of four to feed...

Look, Ken, $50M is $50M. If there was no good reason to prepare, that money -- OUR tax money -- should have been spent on something worthy.

But as you note above, you are in a quandry: No self-respecting pollie can EVER criticize our government's actions. So you offer this lame excuse: "It's OK to have been taken in and wasted money on the Y2K scam, but only if you are very rich."

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 29, 2000.

The best government is limited and local. This is why I work for local government where there is a philosophy of fiscal restraint. By the way, I did not say I approved of the $50 million spent on a Y2K crisis center. It would be hypocritical of me, however, to criticize the government when I spent a greater percentage of my annual budget on Y2K than they did.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), August 29, 2000.

Was it reasonable and prudent for the National Guard in California to prepare the way they did?



California cops, National Guard prepare for millennium trouble

Spokesmen say the Guard would be ready for just about anything the New Year might bring -- including massive power outages.

"For the Y2K phenomena, we're ready with fuel. For example, generator crews, we have 50 of them, we have trucks, C130s, Blackhawks and Chinooks (helicopters) and people and shelters and armories and so on," said California National Guard Col. Terry Knight.

Crews at California's Office of Emergency Services will also be on duty round the clock through New Year's weekend.

"We are connected with all the counties by satellite with generators so even if there was a problem we would be able to communicate with one another to help protect public safety," said the agency's Tom Mullins.

-- The (Guard@was.ready), August 29, 2000.


You sound more like "a" every day. My point is simple. From the federal perspective, a trivial amount of money was spent on the Y2K crisis center. Would I rather have the $50 million of tax money back in our collective pockets... sure! If I had not spent a nickel on Y2K, I might have the moral high ground. Remind me to explain the concept of intellectual integrity to you some time.

As for criticizing the government, I do it all the time. On the other hand, I do not reject everything government does as "evil." Y2K was a CYA exercise for the public and private sectors. Some of the money was wasted. Obviously, the rich have more money to waste than the poor. So it goes.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), August 29, 2000.

Well, the outcome of Y2K was unknown, but not unsuspected to be a breeze. But knowing what they knew when they knew it, it was prudent to do what they did when they did it. Had they not spent the 50 mil and Y2K was even mildly obstreperous then they would have been criticized for not being prepared. And all those non-individualistic government dependent citizens would have been standing around with their empty pitiful hands out looking for money, direction and that loving hand of guidance from uncle Sam to save them. It's a wonder they can find the toilet paper on there own.

Problem-no preparations-criticism-lost votes.

-- Outta beer (Eastofthesmokestack@usa.here), August 29, 2000.

Firstly, I am not "a". Secondly, this percentage-of-budget focus evades the real issue: The average person, upon learning that various local, state and federal governments were taking Y2K power outages, food shortages, water contamination, etc., seriously enough to prepare for, certainly then had AMPLE justification to prepare on a personal level.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 29, 2000.

No, you are probably not the silly a@a.a who c&p Milne's c&p crapola. You are even more irrational as this displays. After all, since FEW (really very few) did "prepare" (short of buying extra beer and chips for the game day in case the house of Toast aka: 7-11 was closed the next day) the "average citizen" REJECTED the Y2k Center's hypothesis that such a "crisis command center" was needed.

Firstly, I am not "a". Secondly, this percentage-of-budget focus evades the real issue: The average person, upon learning that various local, state and federal governments were taking Y2K power outages, food shortages, water contamination, etc., seriously enough to prepare for, certainly then had AMPLE justification to prepare on a personal level.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 29, 2000.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 29, 2000.


I think you give the avg. citizen too much credit. People who live in hurricane central don't prepare until just before the storm hits. If none of them had ever exprienced a hurricane and didn't even know what one was, and you told them what to expect from a category 4, most wouldn't move a muscle to prepare or leave. They just wouldn't care. Until it was too late of course. People only REJECT something if it affects them. Y2K was unseen and unfelt by most and therefore the populace was disaffected. The didn't reject Y2K. They simply didn't care.

-- Outta beer (Eastofthesmokestack@usa.here), August 29, 2000.


I see. Government is incompetent... unless it is predicting a Y2K catastrophe. You can't believe anything gov't says, unless it is telling you to prepare for Y2K. Believe all government reports, except those that tell us there will be no problems on rollover.

While this may amaze you, the government is wrong on a regular basis. Local, state and federal agencies overprepared for Y2K. Why? The incentive in gov't is to minimize risk, not cost. Do the initials CYA mean anything to you?

The average person had a wonderful New Year's Eve not worrying about the lights going off at midnight.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), August 29, 2000.

Let's try again ... Joe Blow learns that the gov't is spending megabucks preparing for Y2K power outages and says, "Gee, maybe I ought to get a generator." It has nothing to do with whether Ken Decker believes the gov't is or is not "competent".

And say, CraPpeR, how did YOU feel about 50,000,000 tax dollars being spent for a Y2K "crisis center"? LOL

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 29, 2000.

That's not really a Y2K Crisis Center, it's an Armageddon Center, and TPTB will be using it in the near future. Y2K was just a nifty way to create a budget for the money to build the thing.

-- Mad Max (find.yourself@a.cave.quick), August 29, 2000.


The government is spending money on SETI... should we start preparing for the "mother ship" to land? Most people ignored the Y2K hoopla last year. A few people made some modest preparations like the Red Cross/FEMA recommended. A handful went screaming off the deep end of the pool. The old forum was stocked with the latter, a group I call the "serious pessimists." People like ubergenius Steve Heller were looking for machinists so we could use steam power to rebuild society. The $50 million Y2K crisis center has virtually nothing to do with the actions of the serious pessimists. Y2K was like a summer camp ghost story. A group of disaffected, middle class Americans told each other scary stories around the TB 2000 campfire and scared themselves silly.

The gov't was pumping out a constant stream of good news about Y2K throughout 1999. The "average American" wasn't listening. He was buying extra booze for New Year's Eve. The "doomers" were listening, though quite selectively. You and others chose to ignore the positive news and focus on "quality" news outlets like Y2Knewswire... the National Enquirier of Y2K.

I have to run... I heard the gov't has budgeted money for near earth object collisions and I want to run to the store for some extra supplies.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), August 29, 2000.

WD, your logic is still circular. So what the gov is spending money when you look at the real reason they are spending the money... FUD. They and the lawyers didn't want the get caught IF (a big IF) something went wrong. No logical or technical reason to do this, only FUD. So the doomers (Eddie and company) cry the sky is falling. The gov says, "oh but what if the sky does fall? We need to show the public we're doing something about it" So after they do something (totally wasted), the doomers say, "see the gov is doing something, there must be something to this Y2K thing." But it was FUD to begin with and the doomer use the reaction to FUD to prove their point, very circular indeed.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 29, 2000.

**IDIOT WD LUBE JOB***......THE **PEOPLE** DID **NOT** "prepare". THEY LIKE MOST NON-DOOMERS THOUGHT Y2k WAS ***HORSE SHIT**. THEY STILL DO NOT KNOW THAT THEIR GOV'T **WASTED**$50,000,000 for a Center from which Sam Donaldson told Peter Jennings "Peter, we're dying here from lack of ANYTHING TO REPORT TO YOU".


Let's try again ... Joe Blow learns that the gov't is spending megabucks preparing for Y2K power outages and says, "Gee, maybe I ought to get a generator." It has nothing to do with whether Ken Decker believes the gov't is or is not "competent". And say, CraPpeR, how did YOU feel about 50,000,000 tax dollars being spent for a Y2K "crisis center"? LOL

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 29, 2000.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 29, 2000.

So the $50M was well spent after all. It was (for government) an insignificant expense, the facility can serve multiple purposes or be cannibalized, it kept Sam Donaldson out of trouble, and it pacified the "WD" types. Can't beat that.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 29, 2000.


Time has indeed proven you correct. But nobody could have known for sure in 1999. Except, of course, for CraPpeR -- who completely lacks credibility due to his lunatic ramblings.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 29, 2000.

Just one tiny point here.

The .gov spent a little more than the $50M for the command center. Note the post above about the CA guard. Every state did this to some extent. Most counties, cities and towns had some sort of plan, and any .gov plan costs money. And let's not forget the BILLIONS spent by Fed to fix the problem in the first place, and the states, and the counties, and the cities and towns...

So Ken, your Hershey bar and pack of matches, is starting to look like several cases of food, and a few hundred gallons of fuel...


-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 30, 2000.

And let's not forget the BILLIONS spent by Fed to fix the problem in the first place, and the states, and the counties, and the cities and towns...

They didn't spend BILLIONS to prepare for Y2K, they spent it to fix Y2K.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 30, 2000.

Maybe, we are looking at the Y2K Center the wrong way. Everything done by our gov takes time. That means at least one year before they need something, someone must budget the item, aprove the item, contract the item, then it is built(which also takes time). The budget for this item was set up in early 1998 when there were still a lot of questions about whether things would be fixed in time. The CBO(Congress budget office) suggested that almost all of the gov. agencies were behind in their prep and that things could not be completed if they do not adhear to their schedules. Companies of America were in the same boat contracting eveyone that they could find to repair their computer systems. Thus, in the summer of 1998, a Y2K crisis center was a good thing to build.

In the summer of 1999, we were getting reports that the power, phones ect... was just about ready. By the fall of 1999, most of the larger companies were also reporting completion of their repair/remediation projects which made our y2k outcome possible.

Looking backwards, it still looks like a good thing to build. Looking forward, it is still a good thing to have. A large enough hurricane or a very active hurricane season could destroy much of the NE stucture in any given year.

-- Ned P Zimmer (ned@nednet.com), August 30, 2000.

You thought I was joking? I'm telling you it's an Armageddon Center! Mass destruction coming soon to your neighborhood.

-- Mad Max (elite@underground.shelter), August 30, 2000.

fear of fear,

Do you sense any irony in posting this on the uncensored board?

"Create an internal crisis response team...

Manage your information and its delivery "

-- flora (***@__._), August 30, 2000.


-Define and use direct and indirect message instruments

-Use media to reach your key publics

-Monitor external information

-Plus much more

yes, I see your point.

la plus ca change...

-- (fearof@fear.itself), August 30, 2000.


If you'll note, I did not include the aggregate of state and local budgets. If we rolled up state and local spending on Y2K "crisis management," I wager it will be close to the same percentage as federal spending... if not less. From my experience, most local governments spent very little on contingency planning and even less on "hard" purchases like generators.

And one more time, fixing Y2K problems is NOT THE SAME as preparing for a Y2K meltdown. Based on your contorted logic, buying a new personal computer and software in 1999 should count as crisis planning. Odd, given the doomer assumption of no power on rollover.

The money that we spent on fixing Y2K largely eliminated the need for "crisis planning."

I challenge you to find a government agency in America that spent more than one percent of its general budget on Y2K contingency planning.

The IT world was fixing the ship while the doomers were stocking the lifeboats. Now, after doing little work to fix the problem and standing ready to abandon ship at a moment's notice... the doomers are crowing about the rationality of their preparations. Remind me not to book tickets on the EZB cruise.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), August 30, 2000.

Ken, Ken, Ken ... my dear fellow, you STILL don't get it...

Using your sinking boat analogy, what you cannot (or will not) grasp is that having a well stocked lifeboat does not mean one does not expect that the ship will be repaired. Only that it is there "just in case" the worst happens.

I look at my Y2K preps as an insurance policy that I never had to file a claim on. Having such a policy was reasonable, prudent ... and smart. (Though I must admit, the coverage on my policy was not as comprehensive as Flint's, LOL)

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 30, 2000.

I look at my Y2K preps as an insurance policy that I never had to file a claim on. Having such a policy was reasonable, prudent ... and smart. (Though I must admit, the coverage on my policy was not as comprehensive as Flint's, LOL)

If the coverage on your policy was not as comprehensive as Flint's, then how could it have been enough "just in case" the worst happens?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 30, 2000.

I have been witness, to "Government program", put on da street, with flaws and Glitches". I tear out my hair on any given day, on a Government (Contract induced) program, that causes me grief. We Government Representaives do not chose our ignorance, we meet oppposition from a Captain or a General who think their power supersedes the President and the Congress. Which is not so. I can quote the phrase, for anyone inerested.

-- Have to Stand (up@thisone.com), August 30, 2000.

Well, "hmmm", that is life, my friend. Some people have auto insurance that includes a rental car and everything paid for; others have no rental, and $500 deductable; then there are the pollies -- no coverage, LOL

Same with Y2K: Some had expensive freeze-dried food, some de-hydrated, some canned foods from the grocery store. And some (the you-know-who's) figured they could always stop by the 7-11 in a pinch, LOL

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 30, 2000.


What you cannot or will not grasp is math. I suppose you buy the flight insurance sold at airport kiosks. Funeral insurance for children? Pet insurance? The doomsayers argue that it isn't the "odds," it's the stakes. This is the flawed logic and poor math that sells "powerball" tickets.

What you are effectively arguing is that ALL insurance is prudent. You are a State Farm agent's wildest dream. A client who only cares about minimizing risk regardless of the costs or the odds. Hell, WD, I'll sell you meteorite insurance today. Step right up, don't be shy... (laughter)

Buying food for Y2K was like buying burn ointment to treat a lightning strike. The only way the idea doesn't seem idiotic is to ignore the odds of lightning striking and the cost of the ointment... which is exactly what you are doing with Y2K.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), August 31, 2000.

Funny, I thought FEMA and the Red Cross did urge stocking up for 3-7 days of possible Y2K disruptions. Careful, Ken, you don't want to seem subversive, LOL.

And let us remember that, unlike an insurance policy that expires without any benefit if not used, virtually all Y2K preps are quite usable. (Hey, don't take my word for it, ask Flint -- surely he must still have SOME ammo left from his large Y2K hoard, LOL)

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 31, 2000.


You change arguments more often than a teenage girl changes clothes. Even I recommended the Red Cross "preparations." Your pals (and possibly you) hated this heresay. "Three-day storm," they shrieked. "It's the end! It's the end!"

Lest you think this hyperbole...


My argument was always with people like Andy who advocated "preps" that were quite idiotic. I suppose you can glibly rationalize the purchase of 500,000 matches. You may be able to light 500,000 candles if you make a serious effort... for the remainder of your natural life. How about the folks who assumed credit card debt buying Baygen radios or who emptied retirement accounts for 5000kw generators? Yes, this was a small number of people... but a distinct majority on the old forum. Had you not changed your name, we might recognize you. (chuckle)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), August 31, 2000.

I was agreeing with your points in this last posting until you got to the bit about the "distinct majority". Had you said "distinct minority", I would agree with you in toto.

Doomer inventory: 1 box Diamond Blue Tip matches; 1 case (24) long-burning kero candles; 30-days canned and prepared foods. Everything else was already in camping inventory (kerosene heater, lantern, cookstove, etc.) Nothing has gone unused.

I enjoyed the old TB2000, and believe my "preps" more accurately represent the "distinct majority".

-- (Neither Polly@or.doomer), August 31, 2000.

I guess we just have different perspectives... Perhaps it is more accurate to say the loudest participants in TB 2000 were those advocating extreme preparations. Read the archives in Fallback Planning or Survivalist Issues. Check out the "preps" of people like Russ Lipton or Diane Squire, the forum "moderators." TB 2000 was a place where extremism was the norm.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), August 31, 2000.

If I may interject, it wasn't the "extreme preparations" advocates that bothered me so much. It was those who said that chaos was inevitable, that you were stupid if you didn't "get it", and once you realized this then no preparations would seem extreme to you.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), August 31, 2000.

Speaking of ammo & extreme preparations: towards the end, the weekends in particular seemed to be full of posts about 'defense' of those 'preps'. Honestly, I'm not sure how many were legitimate - or how many were fishing expeditions. Those were the things that bothered me, the loss of the human spirit - so easily...

To Ken,

They may have been the loudest, the ones which garnered the spotlight, or the easiest group to define oneself apart from. I'm sure there were a variety of motivations.

-- flora (***@__._), August 31, 2000.

Funny, I thought FEMA and the Red Cross did urge stocking up for 3-7 days of possible Y2K disruptions.

Do you know anyone who doesn't already have 3-7 days of food and supplies in their home? I don't. Perhaps there are some people who have a single piece of cheese in the fridge and a single slice of bread in the cupboard, but this doesn't appear to be the majority of households.

So if people already have 3-7 days worth of food and supplies, what was the need for "preps?"

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 31, 2000.


Emergency Food and Water Supplies

If an earthquake, hurricane, winter storm or other disaster ever strikes your community, you might not have access to food, water and electricity for days, or even weeks. By taking a little time now to store emergency food and water supplies, you can provide for your entire family.

This brochure was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Community and Family Preparedness Programs which provides information to help families prepare for all types of disasters.


Stocking water reserves and learning how to purify contaminated water should be among your top priorities in preparing for an emergency. You should store at least a two-week supply of water for each member of your family. more

-- Water (water@water.water), August 31, 2000.

So, if people followed FEMA's standard advice regarding hurricanes and winter storms, they would have been more than prepared for Y2K. Thus, no need for additional Y2K "preps." Thanks Water.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 31, 2000.

Good point, Buddy. While I was often criticized for arrogance, I think dividing people into "GIs," "DGIs" and "DWGIs" was far worse. The real annoyance (for me) was not the advocacy of extreme preparations, but the attitude of the True Believers.

You are right, "Hmmm." Many Americans already have the Red Cross preparations on hand. A family that enjoys camping or backpacking on a regular basis is likely to have more "gear" than Red Cross recommends. It's hard to imagine not having a week's worth of food in the pantry. As for water, the average water heater has enough potable water to last a family of four for a week.

The Y2K doomsayers often want to engage in revisionist history. I remember how the Red Cross "preps" were attacked on TB 2000 as woefully inadequate. Just check the archives... it's all still there.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), August 31, 2000.

So, if people followed FEMA's standard advice regarding hurricanes and winter storms, they would have been more than prepared for Y2K. Thus, no need for additional Y2K "preps."

That's a mighty big "if" there, hmm@hmm.hmm. Do you personally know anyone who keeps at least an extra two week supply of water in their home?

-- Water (the@overlooked.essential), August 31, 2000.

That's a mighty big "if" there, hmm@hmm.hmm. Do you personally know anyone who keeps at least an extra two week supply of water in their home?

Well, Ken already answered that question, but either way, I don't see how your question about FEMA's advice regarding hurricanes and winter storms relates to Y2K. If people were not going to prepare for a winter storm, why should they have prepared for Y2K?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 31, 2000.

If people were not going to prepare for a winter storm, why should they have prepared for Y2K?

There's an old saying that hindsight is 20/20. Just because very little happened in January doesn't mean we should have known for a fact last year that enough was going to be fixed to avoid significant disruptions.

Since the government prepared for Y2K, I don't see why it bothers you if families also chose to take precautions. Also consider this quote from the Senate Y2K committee's 100-day report in Sept. 1999...


While optimism pervades the domestic Y2K outlook, uncertainty with regard to Y2K's impact dictates that preparation is prudent. Individuals and companies must take charge of their own situation by examining the Y2K readiness of the utilities and services that they depend on, and by preparing accordingly. One of the 'services' my family depends on is food. Should we have been certain last year the food processing industry would be ready, and that the oil industry would be ready so that there would be enough fuel to get food from the farm to the food processor to the fork in a timely manner?

Again, from the Sept. 1999 Senate report...

The heavily regulated insurance, investment services, and banking industries are farthest ahead in their efforts; health care, oil, education, agriculture, farming, food processing, and the construction industries are lagging behind.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the oil industry here and abroad did not need any remediation to be ready for Y2K. It was also plausible last year that some of that foreign oil we depend on so much might not have been available for awhile due to serious problems abroad not related to oil...

The Committee is greatly concerned about the international Y2K picture. Several countries of strategic and economic importance to the U.S. are severely behind in Y2K remediation efforts. Regions of the world of most concern to the Committee are Eastern Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia and South America. When considering strategic and economic factors, and the status of Y2K remediation efforts within specific countries, the Committee's greatest concerns lie with China, Russia, Italy, and several of the countries from which the U.S. imports oil. Severe long and short term disruptions to supply chains are likely to occur. Such disruptions may cause a low to moderate downturn in the economy, particularly in those industries that depend on foreign suppliers. In addition, there may be a request for humanitarian relief from developing countries that have not addressed the Y2K problem.

Having only three days or a week of extra food might have seemed reasonable if one assumed the only impediment to adequate food supplies in U.S. stores was no electricity. When one considers the food industry itself as well as supply chains dependant on oil, however, it was quite plausible food could have been in short supply for weeks or even months even with no electricity problems in the U.S.

-- Supply chains (and@J.I.T.deliveries), September 01, 2000.

One more time..........(think maybe I'll get an answer this time? Ever hopeful; oh, that's right, I'm considered a POLLY.)

Why did you "believe" ANY government report? Wasn't this the very same EVIL DOT GOV that lies, spins, blah, blah, blah? Or do they only lie when they say something you don't want to hear?

In addition (and I don't know HOW many times this has been pointed out -- perhaps some day you really WILL "get it"), any government report that is released in, e.g., September, has as its base information that is AT LEAST six months old; usually closer to nine months old.

Further, why are some of you simply brushing off the fact that the percentage of the whole represented by $50 million is damn close to insignificant, as was very clearly illustrated by Ken? Is it because it's not in line with your beliefs? (Not to mention the fact that before the government set up that command center, a good many of you were screaming they weren't doing enough. Then the nano-second the command center info was released, the cry switched to [as someone here just pointed out] "SEE? THEY KNOW SOMETHING!!!!" Damned if they did, damned if they didn't.)

Why was it so difficult to believe that the people you trusted all along to do their jobs (e.g., workers in utilities, workers in the "supply chain", etc.) were suddenly morons incapable of doing their jobs at the rollover and beyond? Because of all the 'CYA' nonsense, a good many people had to work that night; THEY thought it mostly ridiculous - didn't you believe them?

At what point do people say, "OK, I made a mistake" (as many have already)? In some cases, it was a BIG mistake, depending on the route one took towards "Preparation". But it was a MISTAKE; and humans make mistakes all the time (it's kind of inherent). The longer you hold on to "defending" the mistake, the worse it's going to be for you. (Besides, how much of a "mistake" is it if one stored some basic emergency supplies? Once again, that was never the issue.)

I think it's simply fascinating that the people who have moved on with their lives (the ones who feel they spent more than they should and have admitted being taken by the hype), are still posting under the same names they always have. The "defenders", OTOH, well...............

Just a curiosity-type question here to the "defenders": What is your "final doom date"? At what point do you simply drop all this? Is it end of 3Q? December? Ten more years? When the Chinese invade the U.S.?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 01, 2000.


Excuse me for barging in on this forum, not to mention this thread, but allow me to attempt to clear up your confused state of mind.

As I understand the question raised by this thead, the entire point is to ask if the government's action in building the Y2K Crisis Center was reasonable and prudent. Given the conflicting reports, including government reports, concerning the status of Y2K in 1998- 1999, the answer certainly is YES. Regardless of cost, regardless of budget; lives were potentially at stake.

Regarding the question of INDIVIDUAL preparation, the answer is once again a big YES; same reasons as above. In particular, it is not so much whether anyone whole-hog believed or dis-believed any one government report; it was the INCONSISTENCY of the reports that was worrisome, with large variation. (And those GAO audits that caught some outright lying.)

Finally, as a "DEFENDER" (wow! cool name!!), let me assure you that

1) Y2K is over, all is well, there is no "doom date". 2) I will continue to post under my previous royalty.

BTW: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 01, 2000.

KOS, how long have you waited/wanted to ask me that? [g]

Thanks for your answer. I just don't understand some things (never did, probably never will -- hence the confusion). I thought Ken made some good points that a couple of posters here seemed to completely disregard. Wondered why. I could ask you about a couple of things you wrote, but what would be the point? Frankly, I don't much care any more, you know? Like you said, it's over. Life goes on (and it's a three-day weekend!).

And yet, I manage to drag myself into these discussions time after time after......

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 01, 2000.


Perhaps it's a "senior moment" for me, but I honestly don't remember you posting at the old TB2K. I thought you were a new face in town.

But I just KNOW, you would love to enter into the mud, your sleek body oiled, your prowress tingling. Your sensual furies awaiting their passionate testing.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 01, 2000.

Now THAT'S funny. I never posted at the old TB2K. I posted on Debunker.....

(listens for the sound of ego deflating as the dawn of realization comes over him..........)

So I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 01, 2000.

Hmmmm......the monkey, she is tough to ditch, eh Ken?

I freely admit that I spent a much larger percentage of my money on my "Y2K crisis center" than did the feds. But that does indeed evade the issue. If I, Unk D, was worth several trillion dollars and I spent $2,000 to buy enough supplies to ensure that my family would be able to ride out possible Y2K disruptions the expense would be a pittance. On the other hand if I was poor and $2,000 was a month's wages I would have spent a much higher percentage of my net worth on Y2K preps.

So what?

A rich man who buys Crest toothpaste spends an insignificant percentage of his money on toothpaste, a poor man spends a much higher percentage of his income on toothpaste. The percentage spent has zero bearing on what the return on investment is, namely good oral hygene.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 01, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ