The Word to America

is quite simply...
You're going to keep paying for the war and you're going to take in 50 million illegal aliens, like it or not, we don't care.

War Cost at Present...

The total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the very real costs of long-term care of the thousands of severely wounded and lifetime benefits to the disabled is presently estimated to average about $20,000 per household in the US.

Depending upon your individual circumstances, your share may be much, much larger.

Signed,
The Thought Police

I'd rather pay $20,000 than be blown up at home by a terrorist.

Fair comment re: Afghanistan, but not relevant re: Iraq.

Not even RC is going to take that seriously.

You realize how that $20k figure was reached, right? 30% pay nothing, 50% pay $200 each, 10% pay $5000, 5% pay $20,000, and the top 5% pay millions. So if you do well, you not only pay for yourself but for everybody who paid little to none. Such a great incentive to go out and try and do a lot of work to make money, huh?

I'd believe that the amount you pay is in direct relation to how much you make.

7% of X amount is always 7%, regardless. It might be $100, it might be $100,000. So what? $100,000 is nothing if that's 7%.

The amount you pay is not in direct relation to what you make since we don't have a single tax rate but a tiered system. Your description is of a so-called "flat tax" setup, where what you pay *is* proportional to what you make. The current system works roughly like this (numbers aren't actual.)

You pay no tax on the first $15,000.
You pay 15% on the money you earn from $15,000 to $30,000.
You pay 23% on the money you earn from $30,000 to $50,000.
You pay 28% on the money you earn from $50,000 to $80,000.
You pay 33% on the money you earn in excess of $80,000.
You can take certain exemptions that reduce your "taxable income."
You pay a lower tax rate (25%) on money gained from investments held for >6 mos- capital gains.
You pay a higher tax rate (roughly 50% IIRC) on money made from investments held for <6 months.
You pay 50% for every dollar you make past $30,000 if you are retired and drawing on Social Security.
If your earnings are less than a pre-determined set of exemptions you have, the government will pay you back for taxes you didn't actually pay. this is called Earned Income Credit.
You can take tax deductions for all manner of charitable contributions, business losses, a certain amount for each kid you have, interest paid for a home loan, etc.

If you make more than $100,000, you pay either 28% of your entire income with no exemptions or use the above formula, whichever is greater. This is called the alternative minimum tax.

The tax code is a mess and the flat tax would be a VERY welcome change.

It bears repeating

Seriously, the forumz like to double-post me a lot. I actually triple-posted and was only able to kill the last one.

Where does that money go? Lets look at 2006s Defense Budget

Total Funding $426 Bil

Operations and maintenance $147 bil
Military Personnel $108 bil
Procurement $78 bil
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $69 bil
Military Construction $7.8 bil
Family Housing $4.2 bil
Working Capital Funds $3.1 bil

How you add these things up is hugely dependant on perspective. For instance, personnel...do you count that as a war cost?

I cant give you the number at this moment, but looking at mid 2006, there were 127000 US military personnel 'boots on ground', about 1/10th of the total number of personnel on active duty. An unspecified number of personnel in the US and deployed globally supported the war effort. So, do you count all the personnel in country and in support roles elsewhere as a war cost? Common sense says yes, but consider that a LT or LCDR on shore duty stationed at SWOS (Surface Warfare Officers School) in Newport RI as an instructor is considered to be in a direct war support role..even though they may never instruct anyone who deploys to Iraq. The same is true of LTs and LCDRs stationed in Milton FL and Corpus Christi TX as flight instructors, even under the FMS(Foriegn Military Sales) UICs(Unit Identification Codes), that is instructors specifcally(administratively) assigned to train foriegn military personnel (though they dont actually train only FMs).

So where do these people fall? Even though many arent actually supporting the war in any tangible way, they are considered to be in roles which support the war effort. Do you count them or not? It really all depends on which politician is making the point and which side of the fence they fall on.

R&D. Does that count as money spent on the war? Certainly some of it does. The MRAPS looked at in another thread definately falls into the 'war costs' catagory for R&D, as does the hyperbaric bomb, or does it? After the war is over, will we scrap MRAPS and the Hyperbaric bomb? No. Will they be used in other conflicts? Yes. Will they be sold to foriegn goverments? Yes. So what is the cost, really? Iraq related, purely defense related with no specific, or foriegn military sales related? Well, probably all 3, if not more, but how do you divide it? Consider the lives MRAPS will save. Consider those lives from the perspective of the heartless bean counter. Now consider the savings in medical treatment, disability, therapy etc etc etc. The cost of the vehicles is not cheap, but look at the total cost of personnel vs procurement. Will the procurement expenditures on MRAPS help reduce the expenditures on personnel? In just Iraq or other conflicts as well? How do you add that up? Well, if your the whore Pelosi, its all the presidents fault and its all going to Iraq....period. If you ask the soldiers who will be riding in MRAPS, well, they will probably count the funding differently.

What about other R&D stuff, like DARPAs Grand Challenge?

http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp

Is this a 'war' cost? Not really, unless the war goes on for another 20 years. This one example doesnt even touch the surface of some of DARPAs other expenditures, which, frankly are truly retarded, and I mean that in the most offensive and derogatory manner possible.

What about other projects that are past the R&D stage and into procurement? LPDX, now known as LHD 17 was planned well before the current 'war', but could easily be used to support this war, as its purpose is to transport Marines to battle.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lpd-17.htm

So, is it a war cost? Only if its used? If not? Regardless?

What about expenditures on Ivan and Katrina rescue/support operations?

A quick and ineresting note, as of 2005, military expenditures were only 4.06% of the US's GNP

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica [...] l#Military

http://www.globalsecurity.org/mili [...] _orbat.htm


But what about the money itself. Where does it really go? Lets remember a few key ingrediants. During the late 60s/early 70s a political candidate could successfully campaign on an anti military platform.
Towards the late 70/early 80s when the general populace of the US began to realize that the problems in/of Viet Nam were not the militarys fault, but the politicians and that Hanoi Jane was a brainless twat actress not some hyper intelligent socio-political benificent being, the anti military platfom became very shakey. By the 90s, if you tried to campaign on an anti-military platform, neither the democrats or repulicans would have touched you, and even if you went independant, green or any other 'third' party, there was no way you would get elected.

Now heres the important bit.

Being anti military, and campaigning on an anti military platform are 2 seperate things.

What applies these days is an old axiom...if you cant beat them, join them. What we have are anti military politicians running around kissing babies, shaking soldiers hands, praising troops, who get elected, then through pork barrel politics, networks and strong arm tactics rob the military blind. 2 excellent examples of this are William Jefferson Clinton, and his power-whore wife Hillary.
Hillary Clinton despises the military. But her stratagists are smart enough to know she could never say that and get elected, so like her husband and so may others she simply doesnt speak her opinion, but rather voices that which she beleives will garn her the most votes.

Now lets take an example of political cronism at its worst. Youve heard of Air Force One...most every one has, but what many people may be unfamiliar with is Marine One...the helicopter which transports the President to the airport and on short trips.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/whmo/hmx1.html
During the Clinton era, the aging VH3s were replaced by the VH 60.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/mili [...] /vh-60.htm
Pwesidont Crinton didnt like the 60s because he had to bend down to get in them, so the VH 3 again became Marine One. But the aging VH3s still needed to be replaced, and by newer tech rather than by remanufacturing or new manufacturing of the H3 airframe. The obvious contender was the 60's big brother, the SH 92.
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1, [...] 63,00.html
The contract went to the US 101, a licensed version of the European EH 101
EH101
US 101
So why is the US government licensing the rights to build the EH 101 under contract? This artical covers the "official" reasons
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/pe [...] /1420.html

But to know why the EH 101 really won the contract, you have to know who pushed for the EH 101. So who pushed the US 101 for the contract? Hillary, "I am not a closet lesbian" Clinton. Why?
http://www.empire.state.ny.us/pres [...] asp?id=346
Now before you come to the conclusion that this was a case of pushing for jobs in NYS, it wasnt, since Sikorsky, the manufacturer of the S 92 also has manufacturing concerns in NY, Elmira to be specific, Schweizer Aircraft inc.
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0, [...] 79,00.html
http://www.sacusa.com/

While I cannot offer you a link, let me asure you, neither the Navy nor the Marines really wanted the EH 101 even though the civilian secretarys of this and that or the directors of the other said they did. Who did want it? Hillary did. Why?
http://www.siteselection.com/ssins [...] 050214.htm
Who do you think buys those $10000 plates at the political fund raisers?
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPO [...] john.reut/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=980CE5D6153EF93AA35751C0A9669C8B63
http://www.laweekly.com/general/de [...] pit/10149/
Do you buy those plates? Prolly nor. I know I dont. I doubt anyone on this board does. Who does have $10000 to spend on a plate? Well, lets just say its a great scam...buy a couple of $10000 plates, get a favorable vote for a multi million/billion dollar contract. Hell, its only the taxpayers money after all.


$10000 to this guy isnt even worth noticing

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/ [...] /edgar.xml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-s [...] chart.html

So where does the defense budget money go? Well, google the budget, military personnel, expeditures etc. Note the trends. Increasing budgets, decresing personel, decreasing unit procurement. How can costs go up, but supports less weapons systems, munitions and personnel? Inflation? Not that much! Raises for personnel? Dosent compute...not considering the downsizing. Bullets? Nope. Increased contract costs? Bingo.

The point is, how the defense budget numbers/war costs are presented is defined purely by the opinion of the person presenting them, and their own agendas. Where the money really goes is defined by which politician is trying to get their fingers into which part of the defense budget 'pie'.

Or getting murdered in New Orleans

I dunno, NOs murder rate is and has been over 10x that of NYCs for some time, at 53.1/100,000 vs 4.x/100,000. Doesnt help when you have the cops holding the doors to the stores open for the looters.

Calculate the cost of WWII to the average American family, then adjust for inflation. That might surprise you....

Your "pie" is one load of bull, according to the IRS. Their official statistics for FY2005:

Income:
Personal income taxes: 38%
Social Security,Medicare, unemployment, and other retirement taxes: 32%
Borrowing to cover deficit: 13%
Corporate income taxes: 11%
Excise, custom, estate, and misc. taxes: 6%
Total: $2.2 trillion

Expenditures
Social Security, Medicare, other retirement: 37%
National defense, veterans, foreign affairs: 24%
Social programs exc. Medicare, Social Security: 20%
Physical, human and community development: 10%
Interest payments on the national debt (e.g. Treasury securities): 7%
Law enforcement and general governmental expenses: 2%
Total: $2.5 trillion

41% of the budget for "current military spending and cost of past wars" my [b][/b]ass. All but 13% of the $2.2 trillion in revenue came from taxes, paid either directly or indirectly by all of us. So that's $1.9 trillion in tax revenue for the federal government. The $426B figure you cite for 2006 is roughly 20% of the total tax pie, not 41%. I bet your source used just the personal income tax portion of all taxes ($836B for FY05) and had that pay for ALL military spending. Voila, that's about half. Very sneaky and utterly false because ALL federal revenue goes toward ALL expenditures. Your dollat you pay in for personal income taxes may go to Medicare, while a Medicare tax dollar may go to Social Security. The "Social Security trust fund" is a big misnomer as there's no money in an account somewhere, just a big IOU effectively made of T-bills as the government loaned itself the money.

The 5% spending on social programs is also very sneaky as well since it's really nearly 60% (I count Social Security as a social program as it's merely another transfer payment system.) I really do wonder where THAT one came from...

Everybody should read this book. It's old but still carries a useful message.

If I may,

The chances of dieing from a terrorism incident are far less than you dying in a car accident. To put it in perspective, 45,000 people died in car accidents last year. Don't drive? 5,700 people died in work place accidents last year. Don't drive and have a low risk job? 5,000 pedestrians were killed last year. Don't get out of the house much? 3,000 people were killed in home or apartment fires last year. And those are just the accidents... heart disease, cancer, etc are bigger killers that we should be spending money on to eliminate.

Point is this: there are a hundred other things you're more likely to die from. So why is $20,000 a household justifiable when terrorism only killed 3,000 Americans in ONE year? These other threats kill hundreds of thousands EVERY year. Even if terrorism kept pace from 9/11 and killed 3,000 people a year, you're still more likely to die from stupid things that the government does very little to prevent or mitigate. The real (relatively) uncontrollable threat to your life, Riser, is a car accident.

The Iraq threat was never real.

So I'm not self centered and 3,000 people a year are saved by my $20,000 expense.

I don't believe a time frame was listed for the $20,000. As Turpit wrote in his 3 series novel on how the money really broken down. X amount of that $20k goes to certain things - paying the military people, etc.

I have no problems with that. I'm living my lifestyle today because of the sacrifices others have made. I'm not going to complain about $20,000. A single life saved outweights $20,000.

Do you think people sat around back in WWII complaining about the cost of the war? Probably not like they do today. Do you know how many people would have been killed had we not fought that war?

I honestly can't believe money is being brought into the equation of securing lives and protecting people.

Remind me again how invading Iraq was going to prevent terrorism? I always forget that bit.

Oh that's easy!

You see, there was this dick-tator named SoDamned Insane....and he was bad!....yes, very bad.....and um....er....well, he pizzed off G. Bush Sr., and Sr. wanted him to pay for it, so Bush Jr. decided to....um....find....terrorists!...YES! terrorists! in Iraq! Er...was that WMD's? Oh well, either way.....

So, being the good son, Dubya did what any good son would do. He did what Bush's do best...got into another war....

Thus, by invading, and teaching that bad bad man SoDamned Insane that Bush Sr. meant business, it would automatically take care of those bad terrorist guys! Yes, that's it!

Oh wait though. I guess that didn't turn out the way they planned it? Don't worry, not every plan goes according to plan.

Civil War? Meh, it's only a LITTLE one.

Insurgency? Heh, who would have though that you would have insurgents by invading the country in the MIDDLE of the violence, and that you would have insurgents coming from all the rest of the middle east to fight in Iraq? Who would have known? Don't worry though, these are only minor setbacks...remember, the mission IS complete. Bush even said so....

/cheesy attempt at liberal sarcasm

Hmm, the reports I've read suggest that at the time of the "dodgy dossier" US Intelligence already knew that the yellow cake documents were forged. Sadly, as it was needed to support the case for war to the UK parliament, the US were encouraged to tag along with the story until the war was over.

No-one in the Intelligence Community believed Al-Qaeda was working with Saddam. The CIA were aware that Bin Laden and Hussein had had a meeting some years back, but had parted ways due to differing ideology. Saddam wasn't big on religion and distrusted Bin Laden's religious zeal. And of course, no dictator wants to cede power to religionus leaders if he can avoid it. Plus, Saddam had enough on his plate already with sanctions and weapons inspectors breathing down his neck. After seeing what happened to the Taleban, you'd think he'd have been wary of inviting that kind of heat onto himself. Al Qaeda and the "war on terror" would actually be a useful distraction for him (see how the Darfur issue never seems to get the attention it deserves).

If "funding other groups" was a problem, we should have been invading Iraq and Syria first - both countries have a much longer and well-established history of directly funding terrorism (see: Lockerbie).

Even the WMD claims were clearly dubious at the time. How come the inspectors hadn't found any? If the protagonists were so certain that they were there, why weren't the inspectors allowed to finish the job?
Also, only a few months previously, the UN had ratified the treaties to continue sanctions on Iraq. The purpose of those sanctions was to prevent Iraq gaining WMDs. If the US and the UK had intelligence that the sanctions were failing, why did they not present this to to the UN at the time? Why were 500,000 Iraqis allowed to die (WHO estimate) due to the sanctions if they weren't serving their purpose?

I call bullshi[i][/i]t on that.

I know it's always hard to accept when you've been duped, but c'mon Riser, wake up. The 2 key premises of the war were;
1. Iraq HAS WMDs
2. Saddam supports terrorism
Both claims have subsequently been proven, by and large to be false. There is also very serious doubt other whether they were believed at the time, and a pretty big question mark over whether they were EVER believed.

The whole "regime change" angle was only a minor point at the time - read Bush's and Blair's addresses and compare the number of references to "terror(ism) and "WMDs" to the references to "regime change". But it is now clung to desperately by the proponents of the war, as it's the last vestige of any credibility they have left.

If we're so blo[i][/i]ody keen on removing dodgy leaders, why didn't we go after Syria, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and the myriad other nations whose govenments oppress their own people and destabilise their own region?
Why was there such a hurry? After 25 years in power, why could we not wait a few months to let the inspectors finish their job? Or get more widespread UN support? Was it because Iraq was about to launch an invasion? Or was it actually because the case for war was a tissue of whoppers and they needed to move quickly before it got taken apart?

The whole thing stinks. I'm not saying that the war was wrong (that's a moral judgement and so is up to people to make their own mind up), but there is no doubt in my mind that the reasons publicily given at the time were horsesh[i][/i]it.

I wasn't posting in The Other at the time, but I can assure you that I objected to the war at the time - especially regarding the sanctions issue.
There were quite a few other people who objected to the war as well - you may have missed it, but in this tiny part of the globe called Europe there were street protests, parliamentary debates and cabinet resignations. But they probably didn't get reported on Fox News, so you may have missed hearing about them.

[/rant]

I was stating the reasons given at the time of the invasion.

Looking back in a thread I'm about to post, Iraq claimed to have WMD and showed proof. They also claimed to have destroyed said WMD but could show no proof.
Iraq also claimed to have no POWs from Iran-Iraq war but soon after the Coalition entered, a lot of Iranian POWs were found.
Should we also have believed in 2003 that he didn't have WMD even though he said they were destroyed?

Iraq also handed over video of their mobile chemical labs to the UN but said they didn't have them anymore and that they didn't violate UN resolutions. That couldn't be proven they were destroyed, saved, buried, and/or didn't violate the resolution.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam couldn't be trusted, couldn't provide anything to back up his claims that the weapons were destroyed and STILL limited access for UN inspectors, things that at that point in time made it seem very reasonable that he was in fact hiding something.

The man lost his life over it. I can not believe one would risk their life, their country, over something they didn't have. Saddam is dead. He is dead because he could not prove that he didn't have WMD and acted in a suspicious manor towards UN inspectors.

At the time, roughly 60% of America was voting FOR the war on Iraq. No one outside of Congress (which voted to go to war) was able to see the true intelligence. The American people trusted Congress. Congress voted to authorize the war. What they saw must have been enough to convince them to go to war.

To this day, the American people still do not know all of what was presented to Congress to come to that conclusion.

The simple fact of the matter is that we do not know.

The US is capable of making mistakes. There was a plethora of reasons to go to war with Iraq. A few stood out more than most.

We went to war. It was legal. By the morals of the free world, today this war feels wrong to most of us.

I have no knowledge of any war that during or immediately following the war, the future consequences of that war was clearly recognizable to the world.

Vietnam is now an ally of the US and open trade. Mexico is not a threat to the US. Germany is an ally. Italy is an Ally. Japan is a strong ally.

Yesterday we thought one way, today we think another, and tomorrow it will all have changed again.

This war is real. This war is here. See it through and let history be the judge. Some of the greatest people in the history of the world only became great long after their death.

Choices were made. We will face the consequences. I don't see the UN stepping up issuing Resolutions against the US or dictating to the US actions about this war. Why is that?

Secretly, deep down, removing any morals from our upbringing, was this war right?

I believe it was. Wars are not fought and won in 3 weeks. To win a war, the will of the people must be broken or deterred to the point of removing the resistance.

So was I. See the pargraphs after "I call bullsh[i][/i]it on that". As I stated - I'm not debating whether the war needed to be fought. History will be the judge of that. What I AM debating, though, is that the reasons given at the time were knowingly false and misleading.

It's rather difficult to prove the non-existance of something. Whilst absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, you'd think the onus should have been on the US to prove that Saddam had WMDs. They never did. Even having invaded the country (during which no WMDs were used by Iraq), they couldn't find a single one. Months looking, but not a trace. That's a fu[i][/i]cking good magician's act.

Find me a politician you can trust. It takes a bit more than "being a bit shady" to justify a full-scale war and occupancy.

He might have been a little more friendly to the inspectors if the US hadn't repeatedly abused their role by inserting intelligence operatives into the teams - something two weapons inspection chiefs resigned over.

I can't believe that if his back were to the wall, he wouldn't use, or threaten to use, his most powerful weapons. Unless, of course, he didn't have them after all.

Did Congress see all of the intel reports in full? Were they able to question the officers personally? Or were they just shown a bunch of documents and "analysis" which had been redrafted half a dozen times before being presented?

Sorry, but I don't agree with your Machiavellian logic. Even if history proves the war to have been a wise decision, that does not justify lying to your elected officials to get motion passed. As I said - I'm not debating whether the war is/was right, but whether we were lied to in order to get our support for the war. It's a very simple distinction and I'm surprised that you're struggling with it.

I think if Bush and Blair are holding out for history to remember them as "great", they'd best be prepared for a long wait.

Arguably on false information. That is my point.

Fortunately for us, some poor sod in uniform will be facing it a lock quicker and starker than you or I.

What would be the point? The US ignores the UN when it doesn't agree (er, see: Iraq), and the UN needs the US's international clout when it does.

If you can do that, you're the greatest philosopher the world has ever seen. I doubt that very much. you're a product of your upbringing, and you have to accept that.

Not relevant. You keep trying to divert my questions about the information presented prior to the war and turning into a discussion on the potential outcome of the decision. They're not the same. If you're trying to be subtle, you're not suceeding.
There's no point debating whether the war was right - it's done now. However, it appears to me that are a number of individuals who need to be held to account for their conduct in the affair, and that's something we CAN do something about.

but do you still punch him occaisionally to keep him in line... 8)

Riser still attends elementary school? That explains a lot...

And.... there's the Hitler reference.


*** This debate is now closed for maintenance ***

Did you actually read the post? Obviously not. Whatever, skip to the end and read the last lines.

As for the pie chart, ts not 'my' pie chart. As to the past war costs, there are way too many good arguments both in supporting and oppsoed to them. If you want to discount them, go right ahead, I cant say your wrong, I cant say your right, but had you read the post, you would have seen it had nothing to do with with the percentage of the budget, supplemental defense/war spending, interest or the cost of past wars.

He doesn't fit into my freezer.

* starts playing football with Saddam's head *

disrepectful? moi?


These ears don't half make the 'ball' bobble.