Amazing. Republican candidates blast Hillary and Demcorats because they want to raise taxes on the rich (actually, they want to close loopholes Republicans created so the rich don't pay what they are supposed to)(and actually, lower Corporate taxes, but I guess that's neither here nor there is it?) and then they shoot down a spending bill to provide health care for children, but they expect us to swallow $200 BILLION for Iraq?
They've got to be kidding!
In every previous war we've raised taxes to pay for wars, and sold war bonds. But now we're supposed to believe we can basically pay for a trillion dollar war put putting it on the national VISA? That's just stupid. And in previous wars, not only did we pay for them much more responsibly, but we still managed to not neglect domestic issues. What good is it to fight foreign enemies to save our citizens if uninsured children and adults die because they can't get care, the poor die because they can't buy bread and heat their homes, and we can't even help people after a major disaster (eg Katrina)?
It's not funny, but this country is a big joke, and the White House is the punchline.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are National Guard units SUPPOSED to go to Iraq? I always thought they were for America. Also, will any of that go towards post-war benefits for soldiers? Armour for them? Therapy?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you mean personal body armor, my understanding is that most, if not all of them, finally have it, after years of not having it. Though I also remember something about how the armor makers can only make so much of it every year, and no amount of money will speed that up without scaling up production, but there's also an argument over what the future of personal armor will look like, but that is a different and much more complex debate.
posted
Is it bad that I don't really understand how our economy works, and where this money comes from? Or am I not alone
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
taxes, investments and tarrifs.
IP: Logged |
posted
The money for this war does not come from taxes, investments and tarriffs, it comes from China, and Japan, and all the countries that are financing a multi trillion dollar US debt. We borrow the money from other countries and use it to pay for the war.
I don't necessarily have a problem with debt, though when the interest payments start to become as large as ours are, I start to. But I have a problem with a government that can't even pay for basic infrastructure improvements to make sure the lights come on and water comes out of the faucets in our homes, but we can afford to borrow $200 billion (really over half a trillion total now) for a war of choice. That's my problem.
Anyway, on what I was saying earlier, a small chunk of that money will actually go towards buying special vehicles with v-shaped hulls (for lack of a better word). Humvees were never designed for the role they are currently used in. They were light, like the Jeeps of WWII, used for transport. They were thin skinned, and thus easy pickings for any type of small arms fire. So we started making so called up armored Humvees. These were powerful enough to stop most everything short of .50 cal rounds and rocket fire. The problem with that is two fold. 1. To the best of my knowledge they weren't armored underneath. And 2. Even if they were it didn't matter, because the weight of all that armor kept them so low to the ground that no amount of armor would save them from IED blasts.
So V-Shaped Hull vehicles were specifically designed to deflect the force of a blast away from the underside of the vehicle and drastically incrase the survivability of an attack for the occupants of the vehicle. And they do. I've seen some pretty cool designs for new Humvee replacements, and if we were going to stay in Iraq, I'd call these vehicles essential for US personnel.
From my understanding, under the Democratic Congress, there's been a pretty big uptick in spending on veterans and especially a focus on therapy for troops who've been hurt by the war, as they are just starting to understand some of the psychological problems that come out of it, it's not all PTSD. But I don't know if Bush's funding request has and funds earmarked for that. I know he balked when Democrats upped the funding for it. Ironic how when Democrats want to spend more on the war, he complains, and when they want to spend less, he says they want to lose the war on terror. A sign of the times I'm afraid. I also like his new line about being agains the war, which basically amounts to "Okay, now you can TALK about the war, just don't DO anything about it!" I guess that's a step up from calling dissenters traitors.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Republican candidates blast Hillary and Demcorats because they want to raise taxes on the rich (actually, they want to close loopholes Republicans created so the rich don't pay what they are supposed to
I think the rich pay thier fair share unless you think that the top 1% paying about 38% of all federal income tax is too little? The top 25% pay about 85% so I think they are paying their fair share.
quote: But now we're supposed to believe we can basically pay for a trillion dollar war put putting it on the national VISA? That's just stupid.
I don't think that is as stupid as paying for a massive expansion of what was supposed to be poor and low income childcare with a tax on cigarettes. What happens when the program keeps expanding and expanding to include everyone in the US and the tax revenue from cigarettes keeps decreasing? What do you tax next? Maybe bottled water?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What happens when the program keeps expanding and expanding to include everyone in the US and the tax revenue from cigarettes keeps decreasing?
Interesting tidbit. The financing from the tax on cigarettes was insisted upon by the Republicans in the Senate. The Democrats had actually several different proposals on how to fund it, but the Republicans wouldn't support it unless it came from a cigarette tax.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK, considering the top 20% (as of 1998) also owned 83% of all the nations wealth, it appears the numbers are pretty good. Insofar as your wealth is guaranteed by various means by the federal government, I think paying to the government a similar percentage to what the government is used to protect isn't so bad.
quote: Interesting tidbit. The financing from the tax on cigarettes was insisted upon by the Republicans in the Senate. The Democrats had actually several different proposals on how to fund it, but the Republicans wouldn't support it unless it came from a cigarette tax.
I haven't seen where this was a Republican only effort?
quote: DK, considering the top 20% (as of 1998) also owned 83% of all the nations wealth, it appears the numbers are pretty good. Insofar as your wealth is guaranteed by various means by the federal government, I think paying to the government a similar percentage to what the government is used to protect isn't so bad.
It's certainly not egregious
So then you are agreeing that the rich do pay their fair share?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Republican candidates blast Hillary and Demcorats because they want to raise taxes on the rich (actually, they want to close loopholes Republicans created so the rich don't pay what they are supposed to
I think the rich pay thier fair share unless you think that the top 1% paying about 38% of all federal income tax is too little? The top 25% pay about 85% so I think they are paying their fair share.
quote: But now we're supposed to believe we can basically pay for a trillion dollar war put putting it on the national VISA? That's just stupid.
I don't think that is as stupid as paying for a massive expansion of what was supposed to be poor and low income childcare with a tax on cigarettes. What happens when the program keeps expanding and expanding to include everyone in the US and the tax revenue from cigarettes keeps decreasing? What do you tax next? Maybe bottled water?
1. No, I don't think they pay their fair share. That might be the official number of what they are supposed to pay, but Republicans have added so many loopholes to the tax code that that isn't what they actually pay. Democrats aren't talking about raising the percentage, not right now anyway, but they are talking about closing those loopholes so the rich actually pay the number they are supposed to pay.
2. You think paying a trillion dollars for zero gain and a massive increase in our debt is worse than raising a tax to pay for uninsured children? Sick. Seriously, get your priorities straight. Aren't Republicans supposed to be all about family values? You don't care about uninsured children? Broader question, you don't care about the millions of uninsured Americans? If you check factcheck.org, you'll see that most of the claims Republicans used to shoot this bill down were FALSE. But I won't let facts get in your way, Republicans don't much seem to care about them these days. I'm curious though, you call it a "massive expansion" for what, a few billion dollars? But Pres. Bush tacks on more than $40 billion for ONE YEAR of military spending in Iraq, where is the outcry over his "massive expansion" on military spending? I won't get into a larger argument on national healthcare, which is good for the country and would save us money (another thing Republicans don't care about), but why lately does it seem Republicans rail against Democratic spending (which is entirely on domestic programs) while at the same time they push for hundreds of billions in wasteful military spending with no oversight? We're talking about the party that spent us into the ground from 2000 to 2006. And now they have the temerity to attack Democrats for trying to pick up after the mess Republicans left?
3. There should be a bottle deposit on water. It is silly that there isn't one. I think taxing water if you aren't going to tax other beverages isn't fair, but most other beverages have a deposit on them, at least in Michigan, so I think water should also have a deposit, which will increase the return of water to their source points (or at least ANY water system), reduce the oil we use to make bottles, and reduce landfill waste. Several cities are pondering bottled water taxes right now, probably most seriously in Chicago and a couple cities in California.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
What's your point? One Democrat said something in the heat of the moment and has since apologized. His heart was in the right place, even if his brain and words weren't. Are you suggesting this is indicative of the entire Democratic party?
Personally I don't think the President is amused by what is happening in Iraq. I just don't think he has a clue was is going on over there. He couldn't be amused by it if he wanted to.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Is it bad that I don't really understand how our economy works, and where this money comes from? Or am I not alone
