If income taxes were cut in half, what would you buy?

[SOUNDBOUNDER]

The logical conclusion, to draw from that statement then, is the war is okay, and deficits are okay, as long as they aren't at the same time.

Please reread my post.

Deficits are not mentioned.

Distorting a statement is not a "logical conclusion"

Now, I realize that probably isn't what you meant, but it's how you worded your response.

No I didn't.

This is getting ludicrous!!!!!

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

The war in Iraq, when I checked a few weeks ago, still did not equal 1% of the stimulus bill (that would be less than $7 billion). That's just a bit over $1 billion a year. Somehow, I don't think that's the prime cause of the deficit. And is a mere fraction of entitlement spending that isn't the business of government in the first place (as just one example of spending).

WOW, I'm done with debating your numbers! Just ONE of the MANY emergency war funding bills was over 160 billion. The estimated final cost of the war - which is, of course, impossible to calculate at this time - will be in the 2-3 trillion dollar amount. This does not count the dead, wounded, misplaced etc. Most or all of that money is dumped over a cliff, meaning it does no good except to Haliburton, Lockheed-Martin, etc.

Stimulus money puts teachers in schools, fixes bridges and roads, will upgrade our electric grid, push renewable energy and many other things. In the real world, we call that "investment". Will it work? Who knows? But it is certainly not the same as killing people, displacing millions and throwing money over a cliff.

1% of the stimulus bill? 1 billion? 7 Billion? Really, that is so far off that it is not even debatable.

War costs may total $2.4 trillion - USATODAY.com
(Congressional Budget office - 2.4 trillion)
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More - washingtonpost.com
(3 trillion and MUCH more)

The cost for EACH american troop overseas is in the area of $400,000 per year. Multiply that times about 200,000, and then by ten years or more and let me know what you come up with. Then add in what it costs to sustain a wounded vet here for the rest of their lives, etc. etc.

No, it's not just about disliking wars on false pretenses. It is also about economics. Many countries throughout history have had their treasures squandered by foreign adventures and last time I looked, nothing much has changed.

[sahara]

Originally Posted by craigimass

I guess the actual stats which show:
1. That real wages for most Americans have remained stable or gone down since Reagan - especially when hours worked are considered.
2. That "socially engineered" economies like Denmark, Norway and even modern Germany (which WE set up) are more successful at everything from medical care to education.
More successful at everything? Seems we still have a higher GDP than Denmark, and Norway would be broke without offshore oil and gas production, which is banned in most US coastal waters. Oh, wait, you mean more successful at income redistribution. Fine, you're right. They can have that victory.

3. That many of the very rich inherited a lot of their money or ripped people off for it (Trump is an excellent example of BOTH).

"Bitter, party of one, your table is ready". What a load. Sure some of the rich (a minority) inherited. Many of them will soon be parted from it. Notice, there are no Vanderbilts in the Forbes 400. We are a mobile society, both up and down. Assets and wealth flow from those who make poor decisions to those who make good ones. I like the system. If you are unhappy with the results, get to work.


4. That the safety net has been largely removed, resulting in a vast homeless population, including many vets.

Where is the relevance to relevance to tax policy? Significant increases in homelessness can be attributed to the clearing out of mental institutions under misguided liberal policies and to drug and alcohol abuse and addiction, the worst of it being the meth epidemic. Hardly a symptom of tax policy.

In reality, poverty is almost unknown among people who finish high school, do not have children when teens or out of wedlock, and do not abuse drugs or alcohol. This, again, has nothing to do with tax policy and everything to do with personal responsibility and choices.

All these facts should not get in the way of your outlook. After all, isn't the proper way to think to form ones' opinion first and then skew the facts to match?
What facts did I state? For that matter, what facts did you state?
The middle class in this country has been decimated, largely by Reagan but really by the power of corporate greed (which controlled Reagan, Bush and the rest of them)....
Sounds to me like you can't wait to get back to Cuba and help with the sugar cane harvest.

Maybe you have not noticed....
No, I was busy exploiting the working people that week.

In any case, I would never fight for higher taxes. That is just plain silly. At the same time, I would not give tax cuts at the same time I increased spending for foreign wars....and if I did give tax cuts, they would certainly not favor the top 1%.

As a true fiscal conservative, I believe in paying for what is used. Here in Ma. we had a chance to abolish the state income tax 100% in the Nov. election. It was on the ballot. Truth be told, I voted to get rid of it - but it failed with something like 70-30. Yes, the same voters who elected Mitt Romney as Gov. decided that they would pay for what they use. Strange.

Huh? I'm trying to figure out the relevance of your post to mine, except that you come across as bitter. What facts did I state that you dispute? You seem to presume I have a political slant, where in my previous post do find that? Did I take a party line, or simply state the obvious?

[Bene505]

Did anyone see this article:

Is Goldman Tempting the Interest Rate Black Swan with 1,056% Risk Exposure?

I read it, understood some of it and got a little blown away by what it all means.

[Bene505]

And to get back on topic.... what would you buy? What would you do with YOUR money that they didn't take away from you?

maybe a folding prop.... a few years from now though.

[craigimass]

"In reality, poverty is almost unknown among people who finish high school, do not have children when teens or out of wedlock, and do not abuse drugs or alcohol."

Hey, Palins family does all of those - and they are already multi-millionaires and headed for MUCH more money...... I guess you are right....

No. not bitter at all. But do not believe we get anywhere by putting blinders on about war, taxes, our "superiority" to everyone else, etc.

Oh, we have a higher GDP? Of course, you know GDP includes all that money that comes from you refinancing your house each year.....and war spending, and medical spending being double what it should be. All those things generate cash and therefore GDP.

When we produce "goods" which blow up (war) and "services" which are empty (ponzi schemes, refi, overcharged medical care), we are really not improving our country or quality of life.

The more accurate measurements are those of infant and child mortality, the happiness quotient, mental health, etc.

Here is a fairly complete measurement of our standing. Not bad - #15 in the world.
Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, as far as upward mobility - try being born poor and a minority. Yes, it is possible, but very improbable that you will be upwardly mobile. This is another factor which is actually measured by stats, and current facts show that someone born in the USA is LESS mobile than someone born in France, Denmark or Canada:
Graphic: How Class Works - New York Times

My attitude is that instead of thumping our chests and trying to lower taxes for the wealthiest people, we should strive for exactly what you claim....

MORE upward mobility
Higher quality of life
etc.

I just wish that was the direction we have been going in. But it isn't. No stats will show this. Only talk.