Time to stir the pot and Burt outta his hole....
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Time to stir the pot and Burt outta his hole....
The True Cost of Taxing and Spending
Congressman Charlie Rangel recently unveiled a tax plan that Republicans estimate would raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Democrats questioned the math.
Now, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have released a report on the total costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan , including "hidden costs" such as interest on the money we're borrowing, and long term healthcare for vets. The bill comes to $3.5 trillion. Republicans are, of course, questioning the math on this item.
One thing taxpayers know is taxing and spending is expensive, and government cost estimates tend to be on the conservative side relative to the actual bills. However extracted and spent $3.5 trillion is an unimaginable extra burden on our economy.
If $3.5 trillion is the true cost of these military adventures, $11,500 is the amount every man, woman and child in this country pays. So, a family of four would pay $46,000 just for this war. This is an especially painful number to me, as the median household income of my constituency in Texas is just $43,000 a year. In other words, war has cost more than an entire year’s worth of income from each middle class Texas family.
What about the impact of these costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? $46,000 would cover 90% of the tuition costs to attend a four year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. Obviously, it would far outpace the cost of a community college degree, so vital to so many in the workforce.
But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq , where the best news in a long time is they aren't killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.
The Heritage Foundation estimates a $3.5 trillion tax increase would be responsible for 2,200 lost jobs in my district alone, over 70,000 lost jobs across Texas . That's 70,000 Texans in unemployment lines, without health insurance for their families. Some Democrats may not want to spend $3.5 trillion on Iraq , but they do want to raise it in new taxes. And, by digging our economy into a deeper hole, they would create a lot more demand for the social programs they propose.
Tax and spend policies create needs they can never satisfy. A government check does not make up for a lost job. Americans do not want more of this. Americans believe in hard work and self-sufficiency, not standing in line for government hand-outs. We are supposed to be living in a land of opportunity, but opportunities fade fast if more tax and spend policies are enacted. The more Congress meddles in the economy, the bigger the problems get.
Congress should not increase taxes by $3.5 trillion and the administration needs to end the occupation of Iraq with its costs of $3.5 trillion to taxpayers. Let the hardworking American taxpayers keep their money. Families need that $46,000 far more than government does.
-Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul.org/
Congressman Charlie Rangel recently unveiled a tax plan that Republicans estimate would raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Democrats questioned the math.
Now, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have released a report on the total costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan , including "hidden costs" such as interest on the money we're borrowing, and long term healthcare for vets. The bill comes to $3.5 trillion. Republicans are, of course, questioning the math on this item.
One thing taxpayers know is taxing and spending is expensive, and government cost estimates tend to be on the conservative side relative to the actual bills. However extracted and spent $3.5 trillion is an unimaginable extra burden on our economy.
If $3.5 trillion is the true cost of these military adventures, $11,500 is the amount every man, woman and child in this country pays. So, a family of four would pay $46,000 just for this war. This is an especially painful number to me, as the median household income of my constituency in Texas is just $43,000 a year. In other words, war has cost more than an entire year’s worth of income from each middle class Texas family.
What about the impact of these costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? $46,000 would cover 90% of the tuition costs to attend a four year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. Obviously, it would far outpace the cost of a community college degree, so vital to so many in the workforce.
But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq , where the best news in a long time is they aren't killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.
The Heritage Foundation estimates a $3.5 trillion tax increase would be responsible for 2,200 lost jobs in my district alone, over 70,000 lost jobs across Texas . That's 70,000 Texans in unemployment lines, without health insurance for their families. Some Democrats may not want to spend $3.5 trillion on Iraq , but they do want to raise it in new taxes. And, by digging our economy into a deeper hole, they would create a lot more demand for the social programs they propose.
Tax and spend policies create needs they can never satisfy. A government check does not make up for a lost job. Americans do not want more of this. Americans believe in hard work and self-sufficiency, not standing in line for government hand-outs. We are supposed to be living in a land of opportunity, but opportunities fade fast if more tax and spend policies are enacted. The more Congress meddles in the economy, the bigger the problems get.
Congress should not increase taxes by $3.5 trillion and the administration needs to end the occupation of Iraq with its costs of $3.5 trillion to taxpayers. Let the hardworking American taxpayers keep their money. Families need that $46,000 far more than government does.
-Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul.org/
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
What's to debate?
Taxing your way out of a deficit is folly.
Get government out of the way and let individuals drive this economy.
Yet I speak from Maryland where we just got bent over hard by the governor and legislature to the tune of 1.3 billion in tax increases.
OUCH!!!!!
Taxing your way out of a deficit is folly.
Get government out of the way and let individuals drive this economy.
Yet I speak from Maryland where we just got bent over hard by the governor and legislature to the tune of 1.3 billion in tax increases.
OUCH!!!!!
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,550
Likes: 2
From: Mount Airy,MD
Originally Posted by vader716
What's to debate?
Taxing your way out of a deficit is folly.
Get government out of the way and let individuals drive this economy.
Yet I speak from Maryland where we just got bent over hard by the governor and legislature to the tune of 1.3 billion in tax increases.
OUCH!!!!!
Taxing your way out of a deficit is folly.
Get government out of the way and let individuals drive this economy.
Yet I speak from Maryland where we just got bent over hard by the governor and legislature to the tune of 1.3 billion in tax increases.
OUCH!!!!!
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
Maybe taxing people a while would wake them up. If people realize that doing stupid things costs THEM money then we wouldn't elect people that do stupid things (hopefully).
Welfare programs cost money, healthcare costs money, war costs money, spending money we dont have costs money. I think the nation as a whole would be better off with higher taxes than higher debt to China.
Welfare programs cost money, healthcare costs money, war costs money, spending money we dont have costs money. I think the nation as a whole would be better off with higher taxes than higher debt to China.
I understand the second paragraph, but that first bit has me all farked up.
WTH do you mean by "...taxing people a while would wake them up. If people realize that doing stupid things costs THEM money..."
Taxing people only pisses them off. I dont like higher taxes, you dont like higher taxes....with lower taxes and more money in my pocket, I spend more money, which ....
HELPS THE ECONOMY.
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Originally Posted by jamzwayne
Can you please explain this to me a little better? WTF are you talking about?...
Every year a federal budget is approved.
The 'war' ain't in the budget.
It gets put on a 'credit card'.
There is an 'emergency' budget procedure known as a 'supplemental'.
It is supposed to be for emergencies that arise after the budget was approved.
Every year Bush says, "Oops, I forgot about the war, need some emergency money please."
Now, everybody adds to the supplmental (pork) farm subsidies etc...
"...The use of supplemental appropriations has mushroomed during the Bush administration, and the
“emergency” requirement has faded. Starting in 2002, Congress began to allow the budget
discipline rules in place to expire. Thereafter, supplemental appropriations designated as
emergency spending no longer counted against the annual budget limits set by Congress; they
did not trigger automatic cuts if they pushed outlays above the caps.
By FY 2005, total supplemental appropriations reached about six percent of budget authority,
represented 16.7 percent of new discretionary spending and, adjusted for inflation, reached an
all-time high of $143 billion. They had been just $7 billion in 1998. Without rescission
requirements to offset increased budget authority, supplemental appropriations could be used on
a grander scale, and the definition of “emergency” was stretched to include all aspects of military
operations.
A new pattern developed:
• In April of 2003, the President signed the first Iraq supplemental, providing $62.6 billion
for the Defense Department (after the President's budget director had predicted that the
war would cost between $50 and $60 billion).
• In November of 2003, the President signed a second supplemental, providing $64.9 billion for
the Defense Department; the White House termed it a 'one-time, wartime supplemental' (House
Report 109-504 - Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2007, Views of Rep. David
Obey).
• In May of 2005, the President signed a third supplemental, providing $75.7 billion for the
Defense Department. Seven months later, Congress provided an additional $50 billion of
emergency funding.
Now, four years into them, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been almost entirely financed by
emergency supplementals. This has been done even though it is clear that the funding to maintain Iraq war operations cannot be called “emergencies.” In fact, one of the largest expenditures
regularly requested in administration war funding emergency supplementals is for the salaries
and benefits of Army National Guard personnel and reservists called to active duty. And
Congress has begun regarding such requests by the administration as vehicles for non-emergency
special spending projects. (Last year, for example, the Senate sought to add $500,000 for the
Mississippi Children’s Museum to an emergency war supplemental bill.)
“emergency” requirement has faded. Starting in 2002, Congress began to allow the budget
discipline rules in place to expire. Thereafter, supplemental appropriations designated as
emergency spending no longer counted against the annual budget limits set by Congress; they
did not trigger automatic cuts if they pushed outlays above the caps.
By FY 2005, total supplemental appropriations reached about six percent of budget authority,
represented 16.7 percent of new discretionary spending and, adjusted for inflation, reached an
all-time high of $143 billion. They had been just $7 billion in 1998. Without rescission
requirements to offset increased budget authority, supplemental appropriations could be used on
a grander scale, and the definition of “emergency” was stretched to include all aspects of military
operations.
A new pattern developed:
• In April of 2003, the President signed the first Iraq supplemental, providing $62.6 billion
for the Defense Department (after the President's budget director had predicted that the
war would cost between $50 and $60 billion).
• In November of 2003, the President signed a second supplemental, providing $64.9 billion for
the Defense Department; the White House termed it a 'one-time, wartime supplemental' (House
Report 109-504 - Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2007, Views of Rep. David
Obey).
• In May of 2005, the President signed a third supplemental, providing $75.7 billion for the
Defense Department. Seven months later, Congress provided an additional $50 billion of
emergency funding.
Now, four years into them, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been almost entirely financed by
emergency supplementals. This has been done even though it is clear that the funding to maintain Iraq war operations cannot be called “emergencies.” In fact, one of the largest expenditures
regularly requested in administration war funding emergency supplementals is for the salaries
and benefits of Army National Guard personnel and reservists called to active duty. And
Congress has begun regarding such requests by the administration as vehicles for non-emergency
special spending projects. (Last year, for example, the Senate sought to add $500,000 for the
Mississippi Children’s Museum to an emergency war supplemental bill.)
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Bush formed an Iraq Study group - to buy time.
He then asked that we wait for the group to finish it's report - to buy time.
The group made 78 recommendations, Bush then ignored 63 of them, 80%.
Here is Number 72:
He then asked that we wait for the group to finish it's report - to buy time.
The group made 78 recommendations, Bush then ignored 63 of them, 80%.
Here is Number 72:
RECOMMENDATION 72: Costs for the war in Iraq should be included in the President’s
annual budget request, starting in FY 2008: the war is in its fourth year, and the normal budget
process should not be circumvented. Funding requests for the war in Iraq should be presented
clearly to Congress and the American people. Congress must carry out its constitutional
responsibility to review budget requests for the war in Iraq carefully and to conduct oversight.
annual budget request, starting in FY 2008: the war is in its fourth year, and the normal budget
process should not be circumvented. Funding requests for the war in Iraq should be presented
clearly to Congress and the American people. Congress must carry out its constitutional
responsibility to review budget requests for the war in Iraq carefully and to conduct oversight.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Originally Posted by Raoul
Hey, you asked.
Yes sir, I did, but I think CrAz3Y was talking about something else........MAYBE
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
I'm talking about the war and spending in general.
Right now we (govt) is spending like mad and people are benefiting, the down side is that no one is paying (right now) and we're going into debt to China.
We need to pay it back and ALSO make sure that the public knows when the govt spends money the public has to pay. SO, you raise taxes, people get PO'D and hopefully realize that there is no such thing as free money. Once that happens maybe we can go back to a small and sane govt.
Right now we (govt) is spending like mad and people are benefiting, the down side is that no one is paying (right now) and we're going into debt to China.
We need to pay it back and ALSO make sure that the public knows when the govt spends money the public has to pay. SO, you raise taxes, people get PO'D and hopefully realize that there is no such thing as free money. Once that happens maybe we can go back to a small and sane govt.
Who the fark is benefitting? I know it's not me and my household.
The prices on everything has increased dramatically, but my simple paycheck hasn't. Minimum wage went up, my paycheck is the same. If someone is benefitting from this war, and aren't living paycheck to paycheck since this STUPID war, I'd like to know their secret.
I feel like I'm backed in a corner, and I need to figure out a way to get back on our feet. Hell, maybe I'll start dealing Peyote or something.
So, who's making money on this war?
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Originally Posted by jamzwayne
...So, who's making money on this war?
Why would you relocate to UAE unless it's to avoid scandal?
Two that made that move are Haliburton and Micheal Jackson.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
Who benefits from government programs?
-Poor people (food, health, other misc services)
-The War (private security, people working for manufacturers of virtually all items, building contractors in Iraq, people on the boards of the manufacturers, etc.)
-Poor people (food, health, other misc services)
-The War (private security, people working for manufacturers of virtually all items, building contractors in Iraq, people on the boards of the manufacturers, etc.)
I'm not in either of those catagories, so is that why this war is kickin my **** then?
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
Who benefits from government programs?
-Poor people (food, health, other misc services)
-The War (private security, people working for manufacturers of virtually all items, building contractors in Iraq, people on the boards of the manufacturers, etc.)
-Poor people (food, health, other misc services)
-The War (private security, people working for manufacturers of virtually all items, building contractors in Iraq, people on the boards of the manufacturers, etc.)
Also people who work harder gaming the system, than it would take for them to make an honest living; because, they feel they are in some way entitled.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.
-Ron Paul
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.
-Ron Paul
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
-Ron Paul
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
-Ron Paul