Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 297760" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>If you were as perfect as me you'd think highly of yourself as well!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy2.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy2:" title="Happy2 :happy2:" data-shortname=":happy2:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes I'm talking about Iraq. Our war objective was defeat and removal of Saddam and that was completed long ago. We occupy Iraq now for the sole purpose of achieving a western style democracy with several objectives.</p><p>1) A footplot in the mideast of which we can garrison troops and then remove ourselves from Saudi soil of which was/is the major sticking point with many sunni jihadist including our friend Osama.</p><p>2) Also the Saudi royals feared Saddam so there's some extra there.</p><p>3) A western style democracy inside this climate is believed to be a destablizing effect on radicalism across the board.</p><p>4) Better positioned to protect Israel and prevent a conflict that could in worse case scenario go nuclear as Israel and Pakistan have the bomb.</p><p>5) By manipulating the Shia in the southern areas who control most of the oil land, they also hope to make inroads into Shia thought inside Iran and thus bring that sphere back uder US domain as they had it via the CIA installed Shah and then use this leverage against the Sunni controlled areas in the war for oil.</p><p>6) We still are in a type of cold war with Russia as they are still locked in old world type empire and now China who has modernized and take the concepts of Sun Tzu's Art of War into the economic area and is on that battle field with us. Our economy is built on oil and the belief in Washington is that to loose it would mean disaster and there is truth in that.</p><p>7) And yes there is more.</p><p></p><p>Iraq is an occupation in the interest of public policy and not in the interest of humanitarian goodwill or pre-emptive securing of offensive weapons and potential. Also fits the bill in the traditional historical context so there you go!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So there is good debt and bad debt? Well there is some truth in that and yes having some debt as you say doesn't always mean gloom and doom but let me ask you this. Let's say you have some set amount of debt and things are good but you spend outside your ability to repay within any meaningful timeframe. In other words, the principle and interest are compounding at a fast rate than your monthly payments can keep up with and to make matters worse, you still are borrowing at an ever increasing ratio add more to the debt itself. Is there some point in this picture that you feel we should become concerned or is all this OK? My point in going through the "WAH-WAH" was to suggest that just the programs alone that you suggested we cut is not enough to bring about the Nirvana of "paying for Iraq and (as you said) ending the national debt!!" Even if you took the entire budget, you's only cover a 3rd of the present national debt and the low end projected total cost of the Iraq war. I took a look at the projections because you said it would be enough to pay for the Iraq war and I assumed you meant the whole banana.</p><p></p><p>As for the cost of the war:</p><p></p><p></p><p>source: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20071128225017/http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/11.13.07IraqEconomicCostsReport.pdf" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20071128225017/http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/11.13.07IraqEconomicCostsReport.pdf</a></p><p>see page 4, first paragraph. This was a "JOINT" Senate Economic committee report and was released in Nov. 2007'.</p><p></p><p>If you want current actual costs them there you go so add that to the "known" national debt and the math still doesn't work. Also when the gov't borrows money, it's first obvious choice is our own money markets. Well in doing that, it takes money that otherwise is used in the private sector to keep that economy going out and there is less loan money for private investment. Using supplyside economics, more gov't demand means less private supply so when you still have the same level of private demand but a reduced supply, the cost of that object goes up or in this case interest rates. Now our fed. along with both parties are reacting to the crunch if you will and have artifically lowered interst rates and you have the potential adding to the total money supply and thus the spector of inflation. Inflation in many a sense is itself a tax as we pay it because of the gov't overborrowing in the private sector forcing the money supply to be raised. It further compounded when via taxes we still have to repay the debt.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're right, I am smarter than that so let me point our you exact quote from post 25 that led to this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now if you meant to finish the war today, then yes my $1.5 trillion estimate is way out of line. Using the linked Senate report, we could say the cost was $607 bil. However, you said to the end so therefore I not being smart enough (OK my perfection only goes so far<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" />) I had to seek out projections of what it might cost in total. In 2006' based on gov't info, a MSNBC piece suggested costs would exceed $1 trillion, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/</a> a Christian Science Monitor also in 2006' placed it near $2 trillion and a NY Times piece in Jan. 2007' places it at $1.2 trillion <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html?_r=1&ei=5090&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html?_r=1&ei=5090&oref=slogin</a> I saw other projections at $1.8 trillion and some over $2 trillion but all of these are total cost based on future projections. Now sure, it could all end in a couple of months but everyone seems to agree we won't leave at best until 2009' and I'll contend no matter who gets elected we won't leave then. So, the cost goes on. I took the $1.5 trillion as a estimated middle ground and "ASSUMING" your "end of war" scenario wasn't nevt week or next month, I took it from there and came up with what I posted. Again, even on the low end of $500 bil for current costs and the national debt, the math still doesn't work when you cut the entire federal budget so just cutting some programs doesn't work either. Besides to take the entire federal budget for debt and Iraq, you'd have to remove and eliminate all military personal, equipment and property from around the rest of the world and even wacky Ron Paul hasn't asserted that extreme.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh I absolutely and completely agree with all of that. I even think there should be no marriage adantage or child advantage when it comes to taxes and I'm married and have 4 kids. But here's you problem. Your war "if you will" (a figure of speech so don't go nuclear) is putting the gov't in a position to borrow large amounts of money to prosecute this operation because under the present system, there is not enough income. In order to insure that there are enough sources of tax revenue in the future, the gov't by current public policy (including tax policy) needs to insure solid future streams of revenue to maintenance the debt created today. to avoid the gloom and doom if you will. How do you insure future tax revenue streams? By making sure current policy encourages the presence of future taxpayers. Where do future taxpayers come from? The Stork! Well in a manner of speaking. Children. Remember all those times I've made comments about the gov't creating markets? Well they do this via subsidation and the marriage and child credits are that subsidation. Why do they give churches who rake in huge amounts of income a pass on taxes? Because it's be shown a society who has a large based religous population is in general a compliant population which lowers overall policing costs for example. It's a good behavior subsidation if you will. Why the focus on health? A sick taxpayer is not only a costly taxpayer but also a dead revenue stream until they recover. Why is education so important? A smarter taxpayer makes MO Money and Mo Money pays MO TAXES! Why the PC and morality push in public education? Church attendance across society is down so moral direction is down, therefore public education has them more during their waking hours because both parents are conditioned into the workforce as gov't revenue streams so someone has to fill the gap so why not in such way in the best interest of gov't and it's future needs. What's easier to manipula.... uh I mean govern, a society of one decided by so-called societal experts, or a society made up of millions and millions of independant, individual thinking people?</p><p></p><p>AV,</p><p>Ever watch the Matrix series? To the so-called societal experts, we are a battery! Most people miss the point because they are to busy with the special effects or the guys checking out Trinity in latex or the hot babe taking them to the Keymaker! Wolf! Wolf!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 297760, member: 2189"] If you were as perfect as me you'd think highly of yourself as well! :happy2: Yes I'm talking about Iraq. Our war objective was defeat and removal of Saddam and that was completed long ago. We occupy Iraq now for the sole purpose of achieving a western style democracy with several objectives. 1) A footplot in the mideast of which we can garrison troops and then remove ourselves from Saudi soil of which was/is the major sticking point with many sunni jihadist including our friend Osama. 2) Also the Saudi royals feared Saddam so there's some extra there. 3) A western style democracy inside this climate is believed to be a destablizing effect on radicalism across the board. 4) Better positioned to protect Israel and prevent a conflict that could in worse case scenario go nuclear as Israel and Pakistan have the bomb. 5) By manipulating the Shia in the southern areas who control most of the oil land, they also hope to make inroads into Shia thought inside Iran and thus bring that sphere back uder US domain as they had it via the CIA installed Shah and then use this leverage against the Sunni controlled areas in the war for oil. 6) We still are in a type of cold war with Russia as they are still locked in old world type empire and now China who has modernized and take the concepts of Sun Tzu's Art of War into the economic area and is on that battle field with us. Our economy is built on oil and the belief in Washington is that to loose it would mean disaster and there is truth in that. 7) And yes there is more. Iraq is an occupation in the interest of public policy and not in the interest of humanitarian goodwill or pre-emptive securing of offensive weapons and potential. Also fits the bill in the traditional historical context so there you go! So there is good debt and bad debt? Well there is some truth in that and yes having some debt as you say doesn't always mean gloom and doom but let me ask you this. Let's say you have some set amount of debt and things are good but you spend outside your ability to repay within any meaningful timeframe. In other words, the principle and interest are compounding at a fast rate than your monthly payments can keep up with and to make matters worse, you still are borrowing at an ever increasing ratio add more to the debt itself. Is there some point in this picture that you feel we should become concerned or is all this OK? My point in going through the "WAH-WAH" was to suggest that just the programs alone that you suggested we cut is not enough to bring about the Nirvana of "paying for Iraq and (as you said) ending the national debt!!" Even if you took the entire budget, you's only cover a 3rd of the present national debt and the low end projected total cost of the Iraq war. I took a look at the projections because you said it would be enough to pay for the Iraq war and I assumed you meant the whole banana. As for the cost of the war: source: [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20071128225017/http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/11.13.07IraqEconomicCostsReport.pdf[/url] see page 4, first paragraph. This was a "JOINT" Senate Economic committee report and was released in Nov. 2007'. If you want current actual costs them there you go so add that to the "known" national debt and the math still doesn't work. Also when the gov't borrows money, it's first obvious choice is our own money markets. Well in doing that, it takes money that otherwise is used in the private sector to keep that economy going out and there is less loan money for private investment. Using supplyside economics, more gov't demand means less private supply so when you still have the same level of private demand but a reduced supply, the cost of that object goes up or in this case interest rates. Now our fed. along with both parties are reacting to the crunch if you will and have artifically lowered interst rates and you have the potential adding to the total money supply and thus the spector of inflation. Inflation in many a sense is itself a tax as we pay it because of the gov't overborrowing in the private sector forcing the money supply to be raised. It further compounded when via taxes we still have to repay the debt. You're right, I am smarter than that so let me point our you exact quote from post 25 that led to this. Now if you meant to finish the war today, then yes my $1.5 trillion estimate is way out of line. Using the linked Senate report, we could say the cost was $607 bil. However, you said to the end so therefore I not being smart enough (OK my perfection only goes so far:happy-very:) I had to seek out projections of what it might cost in total. In 2006' based on gov't info, a MSNBC piece suggested costs would exceed $1 trillion, [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/[/url] a Christian Science Monitor also in 2006' placed it near $2 trillion and a NY Times piece in Jan. 2007' places it at $1.2 trillion [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html?_r=1&ei=5090&oref=slogin[/url] I saw other projections at $1.8 trillion and some over $2 trillion but all of these are total cost based on future projections. Now sure, it could all end in a couple of months but everyone seems to agree we won't leave at best until 2009' and I'll contend no matter who gets elected we won't leave then. So, the cost goes on. I took the $1.5 trillion as a estimated middle ground and "ASSUMING" your "end of war" scenario wasn't nevt week or next month, I took it from there and came up with what I posted. Again, even on the low end of $500 bil for current costs and the national debt, the math still doesn't work when you cut the entire federal budget so just cutting some programs doesn't work either. Besides to take the entire federal budget for debt and Iraq, you'd have to remove and eliminate all military personal, equipment and property from around the rest of the world and even wacky Ron Paul hasn't asserted that extreme. Oh I absolutely and completely agree with all of that. I even think there should be no marriage adantage or child advantage when it comes to taxes and I'm married and have 4 kids. But here's you problem. Your war "if you will" (a figure of speech so don't go nuclear) is putting the gov't in a position to borrow large amounts of money to prosecute this operation because under the present system, there is not enough income. In order to insure that there are enough sources of tax revenue in the future, the gov't by current public policy (including tax policy) needs to insure solid future streams of revenue to maintenance the debt created today. to avoid the gloom and doom if you will. How do you insure future tax revenue streams? By making sure current policy encourages the presence of future taxpayers. Where do future taxpayers come from? The Stork! Well in a manner of speaking. Children. Remember all those times I've made comments about the gov't creating markets? Well they do this via subsidation and the marriage and child credits are that subsidation. Why do they give churches who rake in huge amounts of income a pass on taxes? Because it's be shown a society who has a large based religous population is in general a compliant population which lowers overall policing costs for example. It's a good behavior subsidation if you will. Why the focus on health? A sick taxpayer is not only a costly taxpayer but also a dead revenue stream until they recover. Why is education so important? A smarter taxpayer makes MO Money and Mo Money pays MO TAXES! Why the PC and morality push in public education? Church attendance across society is down so moral direction is down, therefore public education has them more during their waking hours because both parents are conditioned into the workforce as gov't revenue streams so someone has to fill the gap so why not in such way in the best interest of gov't and it's future needs. What's easier to manipula.... uh I mean govern, a society of one decided by so-called societal experts, or a society made up of millions and millions of independant, individual thinking people? AV, Ever watch the Matrix series? To the so-called societal experts, we are a battery! Most people miss the point because they are to busy with the special effects or the guys checking out Trinity in latex or the hot babe taking them to the Keymaker! Wolf! Wolf! :happy-very: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
Top