Champion of Liberty & Freedom?

[Rockwood]

http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/11646432.html

I liked the way Mr. Ultrarich put it, since he earns a vast majority of his cash in stock investments, why shouldn't he pay taxes like us slobs that work for a living?

-Jess O

[Black Jack]

Don't forget to add in the odd billion a week we spend to maintain our forces in Iraq. The bill did not just shut down once we won.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
So $200B is the sticker price of a war these days, regardless of the time it takes to win?

No. I was using a loose median of various estimates as to this specific war's cost. I didn't feel like putting in the effort to get a more specific and/or accurate estimate, as I felt whatever I said would be disagreed with. I encourage you to put forth your own figure though.

Don't you think a 12-month war would have cost more? A lot more than 200B?

It's quite possible, although obviously depends radically upon the specifics. I'm really entirely unsure as to what your point is with this line of reasoning.

Well, I guess my point is that since we already have a HUGE deficit, why exacerbate the problem?

With what, the war? The tax cut?

So how do you balance a 400 trillion deficit, exactly, without incoming revenue from taxes?

You don't balance a deficit. You balance a budget. If you're budget isn't balanced, you run a deficit. You balance a budget by increasing revenue and/or decreasing spending. Isn't this all elementary?

He had 2 years to plan for it.

If you review his budget during that time, I think you'll find there was ostensibly some preparation that occurred.

He could have used the money from the first tax-cuts to partially fund the war, if he knew he was going to be doing it.

His budget was altered to account for increased military spending, and one of the things that was decreased was the tax cuts. It seems like what you're advocating here is exactly what happened.

[MasterKiller]

Don't forget to add in the odd billion a week we spend to maintain our forces in Iraqi. The bill did not just shut down once we won.

The occupation money will be recouped through oil sales, I'm sure.

No. I was using a loose median of various estimates as to this specific war's cost. I didn't feel like putting in the effort to get a more specific and/or accurate estimate, as I felt whatever I said would be disagreed with. I encourage you to put forth your own figure though.

All I'm asking is if a 3-week war costs so much to win and put us in such a monetary pickle, what would a 12-month, or even 2-year war do to us? Using the war as an excuse just doesn't fly, especially when it was so short. Even if it cost $200B, we are talking about a 400+ trillion deficit. $200B is a drop in the bucket.

With what, the war? The tax cut?

The tax-cut. I'm for less taxes, but not right now.

You don't balance a deficit. You balance a budget. If you're budget isn't balanced, you run a deficit. You balance a budget by increasing revenue and/or decreasing spending. Isn't this all elementary?

So how do we increase revenue by cutting taxes? Especially since we can't decrease spending because of 'the war'?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Rockwood
I liked the way Mr. Ultrarich put it, since he earns a vast majority of his cash in stock investments, why shouldn't he pay taxes like us slobs that work for a living?

I understand, as per your previous post, that you're in favor of taxing people inequally based upon their socioeconomic class.

What I'm interested in is your reasoning behind this position.

It seems to me that discarding equality of citizens is a serious enough endeavor that it should at least have some reasoning behind it. Do you disagree?

BTW, capital gains are taxed. Are you suggesting they are not? Even beyond the capital gains tax, the income one uses to obtain capital has been taxed in the first place.

[Black Jack]

I hope the U.S. government is paid back some of that money through oil and work contracts. Who better to get those contracts and sales then those countries who spent blood freeing the Iraqi people.

[MasterKiller]

I agree with that, BJ. If it is such a noble cause, we should be compensated by not only Iraq, but also by other countries as well.

[Rockwood]

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html

Chris, it's simple, I just want the rich to pay their fair share. As Warren Buffet said, he makes most of his money on stock dividends, so why shouldn't he pay taxes on that just like idiots like me who actually work for my money.

As the article by Freeman above demonstrates, taxing the poor devestates the economy while taxing the rich causes it to boom. Of course this is a different question than of "what's fair". But I thought that it's worth pointing out while we're on the topic of tax cuts.


-Jess O

[ewallace]

why shouldn't he pay taxes like us slobs that work for a living?

Do some research on how income tax started in this country.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
All I'm asking is if a 3-week war costs so much to win and put us in such a monetary pickle, what would a 12-month, or even 2-year war do to us?

It depends radically on the specifics, of course.

Using the war as an excuse just doesn't fly...

Again: assume a balance budget. Add on an additional expense. Now you have a deficit. This strikes me as extremely elementary; I haven't the faintest clue as to what disagreement one could have with it.

...especially when it was so short.

Of course, spending money at the same rate for longer would result in more money spent; and the inverse is also true. Again, this strikes me as so elementary, I'm utterly confused as to why it's being called into question.

The tax-cut. I'm for less taxes, but not right now.

My very first remark was that I had no problem with this perspective.

I don't happen to agree with it though, as the proposed taxcut is to occur over a matter of years, not all of a sudden. So post-poning it for a year is really trivial.

So how do we increase revenue by cutting taxes?

You don't.

we can't decrease spending because of 'the war'?

Sure you can. The government does an awful lot more than just the war.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Rockwood
I just want the rich to pay their fair share.

Me too. They currently pay more. This would suggest we both support tax cuts. Yet you don't; so I'm confused as to your position.

As Warren Buffet said, he makes most of his money on stock dividends, so why shouldn't he pay taxes on that

He does. Would you like some references that discuss capital gains tax?

taxing the poor devestates the economy while taxing the rich causes it to boom.

Whether or not this is true:

Hold on, you said a few lines above that you "just want the rich to pay their fair share." Which is it?

[patriot]

" Last Updated: Friday, 30 May, 2003, 14:28 GMT 15:28 UK

Halliburton Iraq contract queried
Halliburton, the oil services and construction group once led by US vice president **** Cheney, is in the spotlight once again over its role in the reconstruction of Iraq. "

Someone is surely making lots of money from the war. No wonder Cheney is so keen on invading Iraq.

The adminstration is now backtracking on the WMD excuse:

"European critics of the Iraq war expressed shock Friday at published remarks by a senior U.S. official seen as playing down the importance of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war. In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited bureaucratic reasons for focusing on Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal"

[David Jamieson]

I don't think the war is over yet.

There are still groups that are fighting using guerilla tactics, suicide tactics etc etc. 5 US soldiers died just the other day from one of these actions. Many more Iraqi citizens stand to be killed by US forces as time passes.

Not to mention the fact that there are still plenty of Bathist sympathizers and party members in the country and it is likely there will be some permutation of an underground soon.

Try to think of it this way.
Quite a few nations in the middle east regard America as "The Great Satan".
If they could do it, they would send their troops here to destroy the Great Satan.
Now, given that scenario, would you stand for these soldiers parading through your streets and making war on you?

It's just a matter of putting the shoe on the other foot.
The paradigm there is not what it is here. The way of life, the core belief systems et al are 180 degrees from any western mindset.
A democratic nation forged in the image of the USA just will not go over there. It doesn't work when the human factor is equated in. To think otherwise is myopic, to try and force a new way of thinking on an entire nation is ludicrous to begin with.

It is not going to work, it is going to continue to be a dirty dirty thing and in the end, Iraq will remain occupied by wesyern forces for a long time to come.

The imagery and the words we all get on the situation back here are a hairwidth from total fabrication.

Had the route of UN sanctioned police action been taken, I think there would have been a whole different perspective from the west and a viable "out" for those who condoned and signed off on an out and out attack by one sovereign nation on another based on the speculation and conjecture that they possessed wmds.

You think Saddam is the only one in Middle east who tortures and kills his own people? Is he the only one who seeks to annex his neighbours in this world? He's peanuts in this area compared to some of the totalitarians in africa. Never mind what some of the royals in the middle east are known to have done.

As for american installations of power in non american countries?

well, think Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos of the Fillipines, and well Saddam himself plus many many more. The puppet masters cannot continue to play this game. The world can only be a more terrible place because of these actions.

Prove me wrong.

cheers

[MasterKiller]

It depends radically on the specifics, of course.

Nice dodge.

Again: assume a balance budget. Add on an additional expense. Now you have a deficit. This strikes me as extremely elementary; I haven't the faintest clue as to what disagreement one could have with it.

My math may be shaky, but exactly how does a $200B war cause a $400 trillion deficit?

Of course, spending money at the same rate for longer would result in more money spent; and the inverse is also true. Again, this strikes me as so elementary, I'm utterly confused as to why it's being called into question.

So, you're saying that Bush fully expected a 3-week war, and spent accordingly? And that if he thought was going to last 6 weeks, he would have only spent half as much per week? Somehow, I find this rational flawed.

I don't happen to agree with it though, as the proposed taxcut is to occur over a matter of years, not all of a sudden. So post-poning it for a year is really trivial.

I think not passing it at all would have been the better solution.

Sure you can. The government does an awful lot more than just the war.

Sure, like provide health care, food, and shelter to the poor. Cut that out, and we canafford to make all the low-level nuclear weapons we want.

Doesn't it make sense to increase revenue without decreasing services for the people you claim are benefiting the most from the tax cuts?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Nice dodge.

What am I dodging? I have no idea why you want me to speculate on the cost of hypothetical wars.

My math may be shaky, but exactly how does a $200B war cause a $400 trillion deficit?

a) Where did I say it did?

b) If we're going to be asking questions like this, we're going to need non-hypothetical numbers.

So, you're saying that Bush fully expected a 3-week war, and spent accordingly? And that if he thought was going to last 6 weeks, he would have only spent 3B a week? Somehow, I find this rational flawed.

No. I am saying exactly, no less and no more than: the war cost what it cost.

You haven't suggested any reason that I need to say any more than that.

I think not passing it at all would have been the better solution.

But you said in your previous post you supported tax cuts. Which is it?

Sure, like provide health care, food, and shelter to the poor.

Yeah, and a wide variety of other things.

Doesn't it make sense to increase revenue without decreasing services for the people you claim are benefiting the most from the tax cuts?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.