$$$$,$$$$,$$$$,$$$$ Spent On Iraq

[huntindude]

Ok we've beat the question on if the Iraq war was worth it to death and I'm with the majority of Americans who say NO but that ship has sailed.

Now for those who think prolonging it until the cows come home is a fantastic plan just how do we pay for it ? our slipping economy will only add to the problem.

Recent estimates put the cost of the war to be from 1.7 - 2.7 trillion dollars by 2017 and figure about 816 billion onto that for interest since we're putting all of this on VISA. some say total cost for vets services and future Iraqi hand outs could push the actual total cost to 5 trillion before all is said and done. it should be noted that the total cost for Vietnam was 670 billion just for comparison.

So where are we going to come up with the money for this venture ( yes I know borrow it ) without driving a stake in the heart of an already failing economy? if we go too far in debt and Hop Sing and other outsiders decide we're a bad risk what if they cut off our purse strings? I don't care who gets elected taxes are going up, and that alone only makes matters worse on the economy. sure the war is just one finacial issue facing us there are many more problems ahead like social security, medicare, ect. but who wants to sugar coat the war cost for now ? and yes we do have a choice .

 

[202typical]

Dude. Front page of the Boston Globe on Friday.

Obama stance on Iraq shows evolving view

Globe Staff / March 8, 2008

WASHINGTON - In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.

Obama spoke out passionately against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, while many in Congress were silent. But his thinking on how to resolve the crisis in Iraq evolved.

During his 2004 Senate race, he supported keeping troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew increasingly disillusioned.

Now, Obama's views about the war have become a campaign issue, as Hillary Clinton - who voted for the war's authorization - has questioned whether Obama has been consistent in opposing the war.

Her husband, Bill, said Obama's depiction of his longstanding opposition to the war was a "fairy tale." And yesterday, news of an Obama adviser's comments that his promise to withdraw troops within 16 months represented only a "best-case scenario" further fanned questions about his Iraq views.



"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)

 

[huntindude]

We're talking about where we go from here, Obama would probably draw troops down faster han Clinton. what anyone said before is interesting but not going to help us now. McCain says stay the course, and also says he wants lower taxes, that can only equal more debt to saddle your kids with. everyone knows we can't just order all troops home at once, but is it time to give the Iraqis a time table. we've past the 5 year mark with no plan so lets get one, or reduce what we're spending there and increase taxes to pay our bills like adults.

So is the cost from here on justified? and if it is how do we pay for it without higher taxes and more drag on the economy which none of us want? if you're for just continuing to borrow the money and adding it to the debt then you have no thoughts on the matter.

 

[proutdoors]

Dude, how many times does it have to be proven that LOWERING taxes increases revenues? Raising taxes LOWERS revenues, why is that so hard to understand?

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.

 

[3blade]

>Dude, how many times does it
>have to be proven that
>LOWERING taxes increases revenues? Raising
>taxes LOWERS revenues, why is
>that so hard to understand?
>
>
>PRO
>
>Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy
>and opportunity hunts throughout the
>state of Utah.


Yep, for every $1 in taxes cut the gov makes $1.26. Even Pelosi admitted this about a month or so ago.

 

[huntindude]

OK Einstein, why has the national debt doubled after the tax cuts? either we need more taxes or less spending but you want niether, taxes always go up during a war.

You are a true Bushie. if what you're doing doesn't work, keep doing it.

 

[3blade]

Serious man! Pelosi admitted herself over the economic stimulus plan that for every $1 cut in taxes they bring in an extra $1.26, and that is a fact.

When you cut taxes you stimulate the economy and raise all boats. With the raising of all boats incomes rise and they collect more taxes because people are making more money. Its really simple, 15% of 100.00 is 15 but 15% of 200.00 is 30. So if you make more money they collect more money in taxes, get it.

We need less spending, welfare programs, earmarks, etc. But still, the yearly debt is only 2.5% of the GNP which is nothing. During Clinton it was 2.7%. The yearly deficits are higher because the economy has grown that much under Bush's tax cuts. The overall debt is a problem yes, what is it really, 30 trillion! That did not happen under Bush but has been accumulating since WW2 and every yr your going to have a record debt under any President, it keeps growing. There ain't a politician alive thats going to spend less than they take in.

And guess what....I read an article last yr, don't ask me to produce it, and in that article the private corporation known as Federal Reserve said that the US could not ever pay off its debt, it had grown to big.

So what do we do now? Does the damn debt really matter?

 

[NeMont]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-08 AT 09:43AM (MST)[p]Huntindude,

Actually tax revenues declined the first three years of the Bush Administration. Tax reciepts didn't begin to increase until 2005 and 2006 which during the time the economy was growing at a fairly good clip. 2006 and 2007 were record years for tax revenues at the Federal level.

It is also a fact that spending exceeded even those record revenues. Without spending limits or at least Fiscal restraint all the revenue in the world doesn't matter.

The tax cuts were only half the equation, Bush lost it on the spending side. Even if one were to take out the cost of the war, look at the spending increases during the Bush Administration: Medicare Rx coverage alone is off the charts, Dept of Homeland Security, Plus increased spending on Military outside of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the GWOT.

We are broke and getting more broke. The issue is that the U.S. may soon reach a point where nobody wants to purchase our debt. We will then have not choice but tuck our tail between our legs and scurry home in a position of weakness rather then in a position of strength.

I hate paying taxes as much as anyone but you either need revenue to pay for spending or you need to quit spending you cannot have decreasing revenue and increasing spending. That will make the mortage mess look like childs play.

Nemont

 

[overton]

Dude


Doubled since the tax cuts? Prove it. Even using your Oregon Math you can't.


Ransom

 

[NeMont]

 

[3blade]

Now heres the problem. Bush submitted a budget of little less than 3 trillion this yr to congress. Now not to be outdone the dem led congress raised that figure by 5%! And they did this while saying we balance the budget by 2012,13. How'd they balance the budget? by letting the very thing that has proven to bring in more revenue expire, Bushes tax cuts. They then left it open to add another 70 billion in new taxes to balance the budget if needed.

They added more unemployment benefits-we're going to need it, food stamps and other forms of welfare.

No where in this budget did anyone address runaway Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Next yr alone Medicare and Medicaid will consume 25% of that 3 trillion, thats 750 billion big ones.

Either way things are going to get worse in the future if someone doesn't come to their senses, because they increased the price of cars in 2010 by $6000 earlier this yr. They won't let us drill for our own oil, they removed 15% of our farmland to make 2% of our fuel. They've classified Canadas oil sands as alternative fuel and now we won't be able to buy it, China most certainly will just as they are drilling oil off of Floridas coast. Its unbelievable that we elect these economic morons to Congress....but I guess we may end up reaping what we have sown very soon.

Wheres it going to end? I don't know....but maybe if they get a like minded big spender for President we'll end up in a depression and then they'll have to rein in spending.

 

[huntindude]

Get a big spending president? what do you think we have now? start wars, cut taxes and what do we have? massive debt and people saying the plan is working, good one.

Ransom when Clinton left office the debt was 5.6 trillion, today the debt is close to 9.5 trillion. Bush has a year to go so the debt will be over 10 trillion, not quite double but not a long ways from it. if you factor in the on going expense of the Iraq war he'll leave us with he will WAY WAY more than double it. do I expect the dems to be any better? they won't start elective non sense wars but other than that not really, but you expect it from them.

Something's got to give if you don't want your kids to live in a 3rd world country, every American now owes $30,962 dollars and climbing, plus don't forget Hop Sing's compounding interest will be added to that even once we get a balanced budget.

I don't know why I worry about it I don't have kids and I pay A LOT of taxes, so the live for today republican plan actually benifits me. I guess it just seems short sighted and wrong, but whatever.

 

[NeMont]

3blade,

I am a conservative but the Republican controlled congress before losing their majorities in the last midterm, spent money at a faster rate then any democratic congress. We expect and understand the democrats spending, that is their entire platform: More government is always better.

The Republicans are not supposed to be big time spenders. Even without the 9/11 attacks and the wars, the Republicans have spent far more then anyone would have thought possible. The problem is that rather then tax and spend like the dems the Republicans decided to borrow and spend without looking at the future costs of that borrowing.

I like tax cuts but I would like spending cuts even more. I would like to see some good old fashion fiscal discipline in Washington.

Nemont

 

[3blade]

I agree 110%! But unfortunately I don't think its going to happen. Both parties seem to be he.. bent on bankrupting this country.

 

[proutdoors]

I am 100% in support of reduced spending, but I am 100% against raising taxes. If the pinheads in DC, from BOTH parties, would reduce spending and lower taxes, the national debt would shrink. By either a raise in taxes or an increase in spending will make the debt increase, do both as the new budget passed does, and the debt skyrockets, and the economy slows. Raising taxes ALWAYS leads to a reduction in revenue, mainly because raising taxes hurts the small businesses and lower/middle class employees. The upper class will ALWAYS get by, the key is, if they are taxed less, they are more likely to pass the windfall onto their employees/consumers. Tax a business, and the business passes that added cost onto the consumer, who is generally low/middle class. So, in effect a tax increase is a double tax on those who are already struggling, BRILLIANT! Progressives do more to hurt the lower income people than the republicans could ever do. Small businesses are the backbone and the lifeblood of America.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.

 

[202typical]

Yea, I never understand why Dems get all excited when Hillary or Pelosi make statements on how they are going to tax the hell out of this corporation or that corporation. That tax COST is simply passed on to the consumer. Corporation hurts none. The common man does get hurt. Yet these nut Dems piss their pants in excitment over a new tax. Insane.

Its just like the class envy card the Dems play all the time. Tax the rich. Well gues what folks. You pay those taxes as well. Nine times out of ten the so called rich (so called because Pelosi and her ilk believe a man that makes 250,000 a year is rich. That aint rich.) own the businesses that make this economy go. Their taxes go up, their price of goods goes right up along with pelosi's taxes. You pay. The rich aint stupid. Dems suporters are!!!!!



"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)

 

[huntindude]

By some people's standard I might be rich and I'm enjoying the lower tax rates as much as anyone, by no means do I want or think big raises are the answer. high taxes would hurt us all but a little higher taxes along with big spending cuts starting with the war are the way to turn this around. when do you take on an elective multi trillion dollar war and cut taxes? rates went up during Vietnam but dum dum cuts them, common sense will tell you that's doomed to fail. if you decide you want to spend big bucks you first figure out how to fund it, we learned that in grade school where I come from.

If energy prices stay where they are the economy will be crippled to the point tax revenue will be down across the board, this makes your volume theory pretty ineffective. high taxes on the few still making money will cripple the economy even worse so this brings us back to less spending as the number one solution. just how do we do that when you Bushies want to spend like drunk sailors? don't just whine at the dems plans until you have one of your own that's better, so far it's a joke.

 

[eelgrass]

Well, I have to admit, I feel a little duped at this point, on the whole Iraq deal. I thought a strong democratic Iraq would be a positive influence throughout the region and that would be a positive economic turn for the US. (Isn't that what we were told?) Right now I think Iraq's largest import is IEDs from Iran. And most of their oil is going to Russia and China.(?)

I thought Iraqi men would be driving Hummers, smoking big cigars, and taking Viagra like their "brothers" here in the US.

Where is the money going to come from for the next 100 years? Somebody better figure it out!

Eel