Real Name: Tom Webster Gender: male Member Since: August 14, 2006 Last Signed In: July 17, 2008 Profile Views: 11016 Blog Views: 12187 Not Yet Drinking Liberally Drinking Liberally? Bush Announces The End of the Surge McCain Breaks His Own Laws McCain's Idea of Love Unofficial "Bloggers' Brunch" at Dagny's Saturday Republican State Parties in Disarray Publican's Political Genius I did not have sexual relations with that woman! Amazing Obama Video August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Victory in Iraq - What's it worth?
So aside from whether or not there is even a war in Iraq or whether it's an occupation, aside from partisanship, I have a very simple question for the blogging community:
If someone said we could gain peace in Iraq and have democracy and flowers and ponies for everyone, what would you be willing to spend to get it if we couldn't just put it on the credit card and had to pay right now? How high would you be willing to raise taxes in order to make Iraq into a "Little America" in the Middle East? For the sake of discussion, during WWII, the highest tax bracket was 94% for all money (no difference between income and cap gains) over 300,000/year. Futher, FDR thought that was too low and proposed a 100% tax rate at that level. How much money does a person need for themselves when their country is at war? If "winning" is important to America's very survival, why aren't we acting like it? 27 comments from 8 users
1
posted by
robbwillis
on Sep 17, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Putting it in those terms might put a stop to all wars before they begin.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I don't support the continued occupation simply because we'll never bring in the level of support we'd need to bring peace. If we were willing to go double on what the Petraeus counter-insurgency manual says we'd need and land 2 million combat troops and pay for it now, I'd believe we could have the peace that was promised. I wouldn't support that route though because frankly we need that money here for schools, roads, hospitals, etc.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Well, Robb, I think you'd raise the rate a bit. How's 3 million for a national maximum wage?
posted by
mattloch
on Sep 17, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Would that include stock options and other "benefits" that high-level managers enjoy Tom? Or are we just talking raw income dollars? I can see many games and loopholes being created for those in positions of power to continue to take home tens of thousands of times what their lowest employees takes home.....
posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Sep 17, 2007 at 12:49 PM
America is not at war. The Marines & Army are at war America is at the mall posted by
sagefever
on Sep 17, 2007 at 12:54 PM
for me personally?...does some quick math... If I had 1500 a month that would include no movies but the rest of the cable (whooooo!) and around 150 to blow on fun: for two...no rent so's I lucky like that. that's 18,000 a year..go get um boys! Maybe we could chuck an extra 2000 my way a year in case of emergencies... that put it at a even 20,000 and a swell lifestyle. I am already at war def con it seems.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 01:07 PM
For Matt and Sage: In the day, it meant all money you took home. It was also a progressive tax, so that people who made 20,000 a year were still able to live. But all money over 300,000 was taxed at 94%. From 200,000 - 300,000 was taxed at 70% or something, etc.My point is that no one really thinks this conflict is worth real money. If we had a magic wand, as the President and Tony Snow used to say, it sounds good. posted by
Lingtaowoo
on Sep 17, 2007 at 01:08 PM
Well,I was just banging away on my calculator and the damn thing blew up--also,I painted a vivid picture in my head of 'Lil America' in the middle east..can you see Achnod walking down the street showing his boxers and his trousers down to his knees...but really-how many currancy mints do we have?-aren't they going full blast since this 'war' started..you think they would run out of ink or paper by now..
posted by
blognroll
on Sep 17, 2007 at 01:27 PM
I think we can be more creative than simply assuming, as many democrats to, that the only way to raise money is to raise taxes. First of all, I believe that the war effort is emotionally bankrupt, and until we fill our emotional reserves with unconditional support for the troops, throwing money at the problem won't win anything for us. Then, if additional funding is required, we need to brainstorm about creative ways of raising the money. posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 01:32 PM
So to sum up: No one thinks this war is worth paying for.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 01:47 PM
BTW: Doc, I think we've all got unconditional emotional support for the troops. As for creative financing, how about corporate sponsorship? I'm thinking the USS Viagra sounds good..."Ford Company: This is BRAVO Company. Over." "Operation I'd-like-to-buy-the-world-a-Coke has taken Anbar province, but Operation Bic Mac has failed to secure Baghdad." Or maybe you were thinking we could just sell the Iraqis into slavery? Like most Democrats, I think governments raise money by raising taxes because that is actually how governments raise money. Or rather, we the people are our government, and we collect money either by raising taxes or selling something. Unless you know a way to turn unconditional love into an up-armored Humvee. posted by
blognroll
on Sep 17, 2007 at 01:47 PM
That sum doesn't add up to me, Tom. It's not that its not worth paying for, its that there is more than one way to pay. Oh, there goes another comment. I guess I should really respond to that one too. Sarcasm is a poor substitute for a genuine quest for creative solutions. posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Doc, you don't think the war is worth paying for in dollars though. You think it's fine that some Americans are making tens of millions a year while others are dying for lack of equipment while defending those other people? And that the solution might be more flag and ribbon decals on our SUVs?
posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 01:56 PM
The comments are moving fast today. Sorry for the sarcasm. Please feel free to jump in with a creative solution.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 02:11 PM
So, any takers at a 50% bracket? How about a 20 dollar a week flat tax for every man woman and child who makes over 20,000 a year?
posted by
Lingtaowoo
on Sep 17, 2007 at 02:23 PM
Paying for the war..Afghanistan had a record crop of poppies this year I read,but we really do want to take away the CIA's money..do we?
posted by
blognroll
on Sep 17, 2007 at 03:24 PM
Doc, you don't think the war is worth paying for in dollars though. You think it's fine that some Americans are making tens of millions a year while others are dying for lack of equipment while defending those other people? And that the solution might be more flag and ribbon decals on our SUVs? There's that sarcasm again. It's only Monday, and I haven't come up with a definitive creative solution yet, but I am certain that taxes are not the answer to every problem, and I'm certain that throwing money at problems is not always the answer either. What about creative and more effective resource management, for example? And I'm certain that sarcasm is not the solution. It may even add to the problem. posted by
mattloch
on Sep 17, 2007 at 03:58 PM
BLT: "What about creative and more effective resource management, for example?"Glad to hear you're planning on voting the Democratic ticket next year..... posted by
blognroll
on Sep 17, 2007 at 04:20 PM
You mean they plan to more effectively manage resources directed at an "occupation"? Why those Imperialist enablers! How could they?!!!
posted by
mattloch
on Sep 17, 2007 at 04:24 PM
Uh, no BLT, they plan on stopping pouring money down the rabbit hole..... (well, most do. I'm not so certain about Hillary's plans these days.)
posted by
blognroll
on Sep 17, 2007 at 04:34 PM
Aha! Common ground. It appears both of us have serious doubts about Hillary. posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 05:08 PM
I'm actually not being sarcastic, Doc. I'm trying to articulate your position. You want a war without paying for it and your position seems to be that the reason we're not winning is because people at home aren't clapping loud enough. I agree we should manage our resources better. There should be no private contracts in Iraq. If we're going to be there for a decade, let's train up our own guys and pay everyone better. Cut out the CEOs and middlemen.
posted by
TomW
on Sep 17, 2007 at 05:10 PM
BTW, Doc, we're throwing money at it now. We're just putting it on our credit card.
posted by
blognroll
on Sep 18, 2007 at 09:55 AM
I know. It applies to virtually every area of government spending. But inefficiency and wasted funds are the problem, not lack of tax revenues. Let's look at ways of getting more bang for the buck, first, then consider other alternative means of raising money. posted by
TomW
on Sep 18, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Which is all well and good. The question I guess should be rephrased to say: If the President said we could not continue the war without a tax increase, at what point would you not support him?
posted by
blognroll
on Sep 18, 2007 at 04:41 PM
The honest answer is, I don't know, but I'm generally not one to complain about tax increases as long as it's a needed service, other means of gaining the funds have been exhausted, and resources are being effectively managed. posted by
brigadier12
on Oct 11, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Regarding "Is it Worth it?" Take this for it's worth: The entire Middle East is not worth one American's life. It is my opinion that the whole area should have been "nuked," paved over, lines painted, and meters installed so that Russia would have a place to park! I feel so much better now!
brigadier12
1
Our readers recommend: |
