White House On $2 Trillion Iraq War: ‘Not Worried About the Number’
White House On $2 Trillion Iraq War: ‘Not Worried About the Number’
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported today that “total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017.” With $705 billion in interest, the cost of the wars could amount to $2.4 trillion — with $1.9 trillion in Iraq.
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino attacked the report as “a ton of speculation” and downplayed it as a creation “based on questions that Democrats in Congress that don’t want us to be in the war asked.” Perino added that the White House is not concerned about the exact cost of the war:
[I]t’s just a ton of speculation. It’s a hypothetical … What I can tell you is I’m not worried about the number. What I’m worried about is making sure that the president gets what he needs in order to provide the safety and security for the country.
Watch it:
The CBO’s projection is not “pure speculation.” In fact, the report considers a range of predictions about the U.S. military presence in Iraq, consistent with the administration’s desire for Korea-like, “enduring” occupation of Iraq. For example, in one scenario, the CBO predicts 30,000 troops deployed for the “war on terrorism” until FY2017. In another, they predict a more “gradual” decline to 75,000 by the start of fiscal year 2013 until 2017.
While the White House may not be “worried about the number,” the cost is certain to be harmful to the economy. “[I]t’s clear under analysis that the nation is on an unstable fiscal path,” CBO Director Peter Orszag told Congress today. The “higher debt and interest costs, is going to cause severe economic dislocation, which are exacerbated by war costs.”
USA Today notes, “In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion.”
UPDATE: Tim Grieve adds: “CBO officials were asked this afternoon whether the $2.4 trillion figure represents their ‘worst-case’ scenario. No, they said: It represents only the worst of two different scenarios the CBO priced out. The real costs could actually be higher.”
Transcript:
PERINO: Well, part of it is that when you start having all — it’s just a ton of speculation. It’s a hypothetical that was created based on questions that Democrats in Congress that don’t want us to be in the war asked the Congressional Budget Office to provide.
Our force structure in Iraq and Afghanistan has fluctuated. Already this year, the president said that 5,700 troops will come home by December. We don’t know what the costs are going to be over the years and so because that fluctuates, it’s just wildly premature to put out a number like that.
QUESTION: So what might be a more reasonable estimate? I mean, I’m sure folks at OMB have their own counter.
PERINO: Well, look, spending to fight the global war on terror is an investment in our security and it is something that the president is committed to prioritizing in the budget. We hope that Congress would agree.
We don’t know how much the war is going to cost in the future. We do our best to try to provide those projections as we did last February when we sent up the budget and we said we think this is how much we are going to need, $146 billion, $149 billion. We added $46 billion to that in the supplemental that we asked for last week.
You can’t project that far into the future. We are starting to see good signs of success — I’m sorry — signs of progress in Iraq. We want those trend lines to continue. We want our troops to have the force protection they need, the equipment that they need, and the care for our wounded warriors and their families need to factored into this, as well.
But $2.4 trillion is pure speculation.
QUESTION: And if you can say it’s inaccurate and others can say it’s wildly inaccurate, surely there must be some kind of quantifiable sense as to what this is going to…
PERINO: I think that they looked at 10 years in advance. We just don’t operate that way in terms of providing a federal budget. We provide as much information as we can, but there are changing conditions on the ground and it’s just — it would not serve the public well to put out numbers that we don’t have any confidence in.
QUESTION: If that number turned out to be somewhat close to accurate, do you think that would be a reasonable amount of money to be spending on the military?
PERINO: You’re asking me another hypothetical question, if that were to be true. I’m not going to answer that.
QUESTION: Doesn’t that strike you as…
PERINO: What I can tell you is I’m not worried about the number. What I’m worried about is making sure that the president gets what he needs in order to provide the safety and security for the country.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Still hot! Satanic & koolaid drinker, but hot.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:36 pm‘Not Worried About the Number’
October 24th, 2007 at 7:37 pmExactly…but you are pleased with the riches and wealth gained by the have mores.
She should just say, “Don’t look over there, look at the shiny thing over here.”
“I’m not worried about the number.”
“It’s just a number.”
“It’s just a comma.”
sheesh
October 24th, 2007 at 7:41 pmStill hot! Satanic & koolaid drinker, but hot.
Comment by Dave C — October 24, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
Yeah, 1 out of 3….something about the necklace…..
October 24th, 2007 at 7:41 pm“Perino added that the White House is not concerned about the exact cost of the war”
Of course not. In January 2009 (or earlier if we’re lucky), all of the Bush traitors will be in jail, under indictment or have fled the country.
What, me worry?
October 24th, 2007 at 7:43 pmDid anyone notice when she said “There are signs of success-I’m sorry, I mean, signs of progress.”
That was strange.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:46 pmMore proof of more lies. anybody supporting these traitors should be exiled.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:46 pmLovely, lobotomized Dana. Why should you worry, doll. It’s just a big number.
She also answered an unrelated question by saying that the Democrat-led Congress is acting like a “Code Pink” Congress. What a wit…
October 24th, 2007 at 7:46 pmThe Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported today that “total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017.†With $705 billion in interest, the cost of the wars could amount to $2.4 trillion — with $1.9 trillion in Iraq.
THEY LIED FOR 5 YEARS ABOUT THE COST OF THIS WAR!!!! PH^CK BOTCH!!!!
Proof positive that neo-con, lying, RePugniScum phu(ks need to be UNELECTED everywhere!! They lie and steal and lie and steal….(rinse and repeat).
Stop electing RePugniScums at the local level. Stop the local facist bull$hit from the RePugniScum party!!!
October 24th, 2007 at 7:47 pmWith that amount of money, we could have found an alternative energy source to fuel our vehicles and gotten off of our addiction to hydrocarbons and told our suppliers to get lost.
How does anyone stand up and baldfacely lie as she does?
October 24th, 2007 at 7:49 pmThey could care less about the debt they are putting us all in, it’s not coming out of their pockets. When GW666 is done, he and Darth Dick will have taken their pallets of money that they converted to Euros or Gold and be living high on the hog in South Amercia while our Ecomony crumbles into the next great depression.
Heck everyone knows this by now, oh darn forgot about the stupid 24%ers, they have blinders on anyway.
Buck Fush
October 24th, 2007 at 7:50 pmBottom line: They take us so far into debt that the next administration will be unable to do more than keep heads above water, thereby paving the way for Jeb in 2012. Is everyone happy that the country will be bankrupt when aWol leaves office?
October 24th, 2007 at 7:50 pmSo Bush isn’t worried about spending $2 trillion, but he’s upset that Congress is going to spend $500 million he doesn’t like and calls that irresponsible? BAHAHA and the GOP wonders why the American public is DONE WITH THEM!
October 24th, 2007 at 7:54 pmHopefully the debt will be so high that we can’t afford socialized medicine.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:54 pmWhat I’m worried about is making sure that the president gets what he needs in order to provide the safety and security for the country.
OH…oh…he can have my daughters if that’s what it takes, then. Sure, everything for our safety and security…
What a laughable load of crap straigh to your belly.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:59 pmIgnore the troll.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:59 pmHer comment that “it wouldn’t serve the public well to put out numbers that we don’t have any confidence in” means that until the numbers have been cooked by the whitehouse we don’t want people to see them.
Commenter 2, had enough, points to another comment but did not cite the most revealing words: “What I’m worried about is that the president gets what he needs”. Why not that the troops get what they need?
I’m very supicious about the “loyalty” the kool-aid drinkers display, like Sara Taylor when she stated she swore an oath to the president.
Perhaps one day history books will put an asterik next to the 43rd presidents name to explaine why Al Gore was elected but didn’t serve.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:00 pm2 trillion huh, no telling how much it is really going to cost.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:01 pm“Perino added that the White House is not concerned about the exact cost of the warâ€
Of course not. In January 2009 (or earlier if we’re lucky), all of the Bush traitors will be in jail, under indictment or have fled the country.
What, me worry?
Comment by celtic cynic — October 24, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
You nailed it, cynic. Why should Bush worry about the costs? He’s not the one who’s going to have to foot them, or explain to the American people why the government went bankrupt.
If I knew I was going to pass my credit card bills on to someone else, I wouldn’t worry about what I was charging on them, either.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:02 pmBarbie Perino doesn’t care. She’s rich. She got hers and now the rest of us can just go fu*k ourselves. This is the main reason why my 5 Republican friends are now Democrats or Independents. They are infuriated with this administration and what they have done to our economy.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:03 pmShe also answered an unrelated question by saying that the Democrat-led Congress is acting like a “Code Pink†Congress. What a wit…
Comment by And Yet..
I’m quite sure they send her out there every day with a list of one-line insults towards Democrats they want her to deliver whenever possible. I’m sure the 24%ers were impressed.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:05 pmOf course they’re not worried! They’ve shifted the tax burden to the middle class and freed the rich from worry!!!
October 24th, 2007 at 8:06 pm..Bush is planning on making speeches -of course not free- after he leaves office..just like all of them do.
The Budget will not be of his concern after 14 months from now.
Will the Budget be balanced in the coming 14 motnhs ? unrealistic expectation…
October 24th, 2007 at 8:08 pmWill the deficit be more ? A REALISTIC EXPECTATION..
Bush cannot fix in the coming 14 months what he could not fix in the last 82 months.
How about we try not spending money on people who are illegally in this country? How many billions is that?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:11 pm“You must understand that Uncle Dick and Daddy (UD&D) can only appropriate (KKKarl taught me that big word), most of the money I can steal from you dumb Citizens for Iraq/Iran/Next. If I give the money to sick kids UD&D don’t get to steal any until the kids are grown and I can send them to Iraq/Iran/Next and get them killed so I can contract (No-bid of course) to bring the bodies home without Momma seeing it on TV. I am King so I can do anything I want, including cancelling the next election after Hillary wins.”
King George the Dumb
October 24th, 2007 at 8:12 pmHow about we try not spending money on people who are illegally in this country? How many billions is that?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
How about our companies not import illegal workers so they won’t have to pay fair wages to Americans? How many billions is that, that the American companies cheat workers, and then don’t pay in taxes because of GOP Tax Shelters?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:15 pmis anyone taking odds that Bush WON’T get his billions? Anyone???
Why do we even play this game? Congress should just pull up stumps and go back to the pavilion. They certainly aren’t needed anymore, having given all of their power to the unitarian president. They are just wasting their time and our money playing the game, when they are going to give in to him anyway.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:21 pmIn 2004 John Kerry extrapolated the cost of the war to $250 billion and the rightwing had a group heart attack. He should have said 2 trillion and we’d have been spared the agony of the last 3 years since they’d all have had coronaries.
Or just imagine if some brown or black people got a hold of $2 trilllion. We really need to see how far we can push the rightwing.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:26 pmHow about we try not spending money on people who are illegally in this country? How many billions is that?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
It is not even close to billions. As a matter of fact, most experts say that undocumented immigrants contribute way more to our economy then they take from it.
Go back for better talking points. Yours are pathetic.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:29 pmHow many billions is that, that the American companies cheat workers, and then don’t pay in taxes because of GOP Tax Shelters?
Comment by republicans hate facts
Or because they are incorporated in the Caymen Islands to avoid paying US Income taxes. There is one house in the Cayment Islands that is home to over 14,000 corporations.
I read recently that if we closed all the corporate loopholes and went back to taxing corporations at the rate they were paying in the 1950’s under Eisenhower, we would be able to pay off the enormous bill Bush has left us in less than a year.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:31 pmShe could be standing up there in her fecking bikini and she would still
be a disgusting, war criminal supporting liar.
Isn’t lying to further an ongoing crime a crime in itself?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:32 pmIsn’t kind of like someone helping to dispose of the body after a murder
where they didn’t actually pull the trigger.
An accomplice, so to speak ?
How about our companies not import illegal workers so they won’t have to pay fair wages to Americans? How many billions is that, that the American companies cheat workers, and then don’t pay in taxes because of GOP Tax Shelters?
Fine, which companies? How are those companies cheating Americans? How are they not paying taxes?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:34 pmIn early 2006, the Stiglitz-Bilmes study said $2.2 Trillion. But that was when everyone thought we were winding down the war. Noone knew about “the surge” then. In early 2007, Stiglitz said the figure would have to be much higher—especially if it turned into a fifty-seven year Korea situation.
Do you realize that $50 billion is only 2% of $2.4 Trillion?
But I guess since the oil reserves of the top five western oil companies are now worth $2.2 Trillion since W made a barrel go from $20 to $89, then it is all right. Plus Iraq’s oil reserves are now worth about $20 Trillion. Plus, we can take Iran’s next. It’s fine if you own a part of the Oil Corps.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:35 pmIt is not even close to billions. As a matter of fact, most experts say that undocumented immigrants contribute way more to our economy then they take from it.
Not even close to billions….okay……twilight zone time….okay billy boy do they contribute when they go to our schools? get free healthcare? commit crime? become part of the prison population?
Come on now you can do better than this.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:37 pmI guess none of the trolls find this number at all concerning. Could that because none of them work and pay any taxes? And none of them have any kids, so they don’t worry about passing that debt on to their kids? Or are they just so stupid that they don’t know what that number means? OR …. are they just so full of BushCo Kool-aid enemas that they are totally blinded to reality?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:37 pmWhat do you people expect when Ronald Reagan is their hero?
The federal debt doubled under both him, and G W Bush!
And what were those interest rates, unemployment rate and inflation rate that the worst President in American history, Jimmy “dumbass in denial” Carter handed Reagan?
Right….double digits on all of it.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:39 pmTPPS,
You side only gives rhetoric about stopping illegal immigrants. When they have control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches they still do nothing. Their corporate backers love illegal workers because they drive down wages. It’s been happening ever since Reagan came in.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:39 pmNot even close to billions….okay……twilight zone time….okay billy boy do they contribute when they go to our schools? get free healthcare? commit crime? become part of the prison population?
Come on now you can do better than this.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
No, twilight zone time is now, when your Pres is committing your country to paying a couple trillion bucks on wars of choice. Focus.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:40 pmpoor lil dana purina - now valerie plame is all over the news, and way hotter (and more credible), and all pavlov’s pet patriots are preoccupied with her puppies instead…
October 24th, 2007 at 8:41 pmNot even close to billions….okay……twilight zone time….okay billy boy do they contribute when they go to our schools? get free healthcare? commit crime? become part of the prison population?
Come on now you can do better than this.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
California generates about $100 Billion in agriculture related revenues, with the bulk of that done through the labor of illegal aliens, or people that originally came here illegally.
And that’s one industry in one state!
How much do you think they contribute?
Studies have shown they use very little health care, the prison cost is just a stupid one, since illegals caught doing criminal activities are often deported, and the schools - well what, you want stupid uneducated people here? Those CHILDREN are often CITIZENS - you RETARDED BIGOTED WANKER!
October 24th, 2007 at 8:41 pmp.s.
Jesus is a Socialist.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:42 pmFine, which companies? How are those companies cheating Americans? How are they not paying taxes?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
It’s Michael in drag…
October 24th, 2007 at 8:42 pmCould that because none of them work and pay any taxes? And none of them have any kids, so they don’t worry about passing that debt on to their kids?
In 2004 the upper 50% of wage earners paid 96.7% of the tax bill. Look it up it’s easy to find. How much should they pay, 100%? I would gladly be in favor of that if you guys will stop crying.
Oh, the kids stat…..twilight zone time again….kookland right here at TP.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:43 pmAnd what were those interest rates, unemployment rate and inflation rate that the worst President in American history, Jimmy “dumbass in denial†Carter handed Reagan?
Right….double digits on all of it.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Actually those rates were the same or higher for RayGun - dum bass!
Lets not also forget that the Unemployment Rate under Jimmy actually RECORDED UNEMPLOYMENT, whereas Ronnie RayGun changed the methodology so his numbers would LOOK BETTER than they were!
Lets also not forget that GDP growth under Carter was higher than it is under Bush, and the gap between rich an poor was closer, and I can go on and on!
You wingnuts really don’t know CRAP about economics! Maybe that’s why GOP Presidencies are such poor economic performers compared to DNC ones!
October 24th, 2007 at 8:44 pmIn 2004 the upper 50% of wage earners paid 96.7% of the tax bill. Look it up it’s easy to find. How much should they pay, 100%? I would gladly be in favor of that if you guys will stop crying.
Oh, the kids stat…..twilight zone time again….kookland right here at TP.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
Post a link. I think you’re way off…
October 24th, 2007 at 8:44 pmTPPS,
Unemployment rate increased going from Carter to Reagan. Job growth rate decreased going from Carter to Reagan as it has every time going from Dem to Repub. Job growth rate increases every time going from Repub to Dem. Records have been kept for past 87 years.
Clinton averaged 237,000 new jobs per month. GWBush averaged 72,000 new jobs per month, but median wages decreased under him when adjusted for inflation. First time since Great Depression.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:44 pmNot only do they not care, but perhaps they are feeling smug knowing they will be able to step out of our crumbling society into their new world with the wealth they have gained. These are nothing but murderous giggling sociopaths.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:45 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
**yawn**
October 24th, 2007 at 8:45 pmIn 2004 the upper 50% of wage earners paid 96.7% of the tax bill. Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
That’s a COMPLETE LIE!
Look it up it’s easy to find. How much should they pay, 100%? I would gladly be in favor of that if you guys will stop crying.
Oh, the kids stat…..twilight zone time again….kookland right here at TP.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Look it up! You’re a MORON! It’s just NOT TRUE!!!
Here’s a PRIMER for you MORON!
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Taxation_in_the_United_States
October 24th, 2007 at 8:45 pmOh, the kids stat…..twilight zone time again….kookland right here at TP.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Hey Dumbass, Econ 101: if you spend more than you bring in, you create a thing called debt, and that is now being mainly held by China. And, unlike you, others have to either repay their debts or have their assets repossessed. Guess that doesn’t apply to you, huh?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:46 pm“The top 5% of taxpayers, gross income $137,056 or more, pay 57.1% of all federal taxes”
Moron.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:47 pmCalifornia generates about $100 Billion in agriculture related revenues, with the bulk of that done through the labor of illegal aliens, or people that originally came here illegally.
That’s the gross revenue dummy…doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t have done the work. Maybe the unemployed in California could have earned their checks rather than sitting on their butts claiming they can’t find any work.
You guys are too easy.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:47 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
**yawn**
Comment by Wayne — October 24, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
I think I smell a retarded jack*ss! That’s what I think!
He spouts sh*t, and seems to actually believe his own lies!
He doesn’t understand that there is a difference between INCOME TAX BURDEN and TAX BURDEN!
Poor people pay income taxes, payroll taxes, state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, and yet he falsely implies that INCOME TAX is the ONLY TAX PAID!
What an IDIOT!
October 24th, 2007 at 8:47 pm“Not worried about the number”, or reality.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:48 pmMichael, you’ve just been red-assed again. Time to drop the fake beard.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:49 pmThat’s the gross revenue dummy…doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t have done the work. Maybe the unemployed in California could have earned their checks rather than sitting on their butts claiming they can’t find any work.
You guys are too easy.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Dummy? Says the guy that didn’t realize that hundreds of billions of dollars are dependent almost solely on illegal labor!
If these industries can hire other people, why don’t they? These industries specifically say they can’t find workers - so that undermines your ‘can’t find work’ b*llsh*t.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:51 pmHow are they not paying taxes?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
They are not paying taxes because they pay all of those illegal immigrants under the table. So none of that money gets reported and thus, there is no federal withholding.
get free healthcare?
What free healthcare? That’s coming in 2008.
commit crime?
Yes, it is true that when they commit crime they are not contributing to society. However, I think it is a little deeper than that. We should be asking ourselves why do they commit crime? Socio-economic elements would be my guess.
become part of the prison population?
Don’t build so many prisons.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 8:53 pmMaybe the unemployed in California could have earned their checks rather than sitting on their butts claiming they can’t find any work.
You guys are too easy.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
The wingnut thinks white collar workers with advanced degrees should flush their careers and pick lettuce from now on!!!!
And we wonder why the wage gap between rich and poor keeps widening - with ‘geniuses’ like this in the GOP doing economic planning, no wonder GDP growth under GOP presidents is half what it is under DNC presidents!
October 24th, 2007 at 8:54 pmTPPS:
October 24th, 2007 at 8:54 pmIs there a problem with socialism?
The share of the tax burden paid by large corporations has very steadily declined for the past fifty-seven years. This burden must be made up by people. Top personal tax rate has declined from 90%. Difference cannot be made up by poor people. That only leaves the middle class to make up the difference.
Read an almanac. It’s all in there.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:56 pmSpeaking for herself Dana Perino wont have to worry about the amount Americans will have to pay because of the money spent in Iraq. Dana and her husband who is from England will just move back there when the Bush/Cheney term is over. She knows all hell will break out when Americans find out the truth of how much debt we’re in. Dana and her husband have no children so she is most likely getting things ready to move. Look for other White House employees to move overseas and keep an apartment in the US but not let their income be taxed by the US. Dennis Hastert already has his money in off shore accounts. Cheney will have a bigger problem as he will be charged with War Crimes by the UN and have to give pay offs from his stolen loot to get off so he wont have to go to jail. Daddy Bush will once again have to save his baby boy George. Rummy will go to a nursing home. Connie Rice will become Black and use the race card hoping it works.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:56 pmFirst off Wiki is filled with inaccurate data and facts.
Just a quick search provided these numbers for 2005 which indicated the number was 96.93%.
Stop being an idiot and get real facts not made up ones.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:56 pmPoor little wingnuts can’t distinguish total tax burden from individual income taxes! Poor little ‘tards!
October 24th, 2007 at 8:57 pmFirst off Wiki is filled with inaccurate data and facts.
Just a quick search provided these numbers for 2005 which indicated the number was 96.93%.
Stop being an idiot and get real facts not made up ones.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
That’s only INCOME TAX, not TOTAL TAX BURDEN - moron!
October 24th, 2007 at 8:57 pmThe share of the tax burden paid by large corporations has very steadily declined for the past fifty-seven years. This burden must be made up by people. Top personal tax rate has declined from 90%. Difference cannot be made up by poor people. That only leaves the middle class to make up the difference.
The keyword there is “share”. When you state 57 years you include the pre Reagan years when under Carter the top tax rate exceeded 70%. Hard to get people to grow their business paying those kind of marginal taxes on the next dollar earned.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:03 pmHey RHF are you just ignorant or not a financial person? I mean seriously. if the lower 50% are only paying 3% that is not much of a BURDEN. Got it?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:05 pmIf the top 1% own 40% of the wealth, what percentage of taxes do you think they should pay?
Ross Perot said he only paid 7% federal income tax on his $200+ million annual income. There are plenty of tax-free investments for the rich.
If it were left totally up to Republicans, top corporations like Exxon, GE, AT&T, and Enron would pay zero taxes. I am not exaggerating. And they would receive more subsidies from taxpayers if liberals did not fight against them.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:05 pmIn 2004 the upper 50% of wage earners paid 96.7% of the tax bill. Look it up it’s easy to find. How much should they pay, 100%? I would gladly be in favor of that if you guys will stop crying.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Duh. The reason you don’t provide a link is because you don’t want to show the whole picture. The top 50% of wage earners in 2007 paid 96% of the income tax. But what you failed to state is that the top 50% also earned 83% of the income. In other words, the other 50% barely earned anything. It’s a progressive tax system, you pay a higher rate the more money you earn. If it was a flat tax the top 50% would have paid 83% of the tax instead of 96%. You act like this is some sort of a gift to the country.
btw, unfortunately the top 50% isn’t paying enough because your pres is pissing it away faster then a drunken sailor.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:09 pmTPPS:
Is there a problem with socialism?
Yes… the people are typically oppressed.
It’s the old wall theory. Remove the border restrictions and see which way the people go. They’re not running to socialism. I don’t see anyone getting on rafts to Cuba.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:10 pmAnd the problem with socialism is????
October 24th, 2007 at 9:10 pmHow much of the supposed 2.4 trillion has been poured into the U.S. Economy? How many jobs have been created? How much has been paid back in tax dollars? Until you know the answers to these questions, talking only about “cost†is meaningless.
Comment by TCDon — October 24, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
You asked the questions, you dig for the answers. You don’t care, that’s the real answer.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:12 pmWhen Microsoft’s stock was at its highest and Bill Gates was worth $100 billion, it was said his wealth equalled the bottom 50% of Americans. The five recipients of Walton’s fortune now have $100 billion. I don’t worry about their welfare. I worry about the average guy with a wife and two kids trying to pay his $900 rent while earning $7.50 per hour.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:12 pmDave, the oppurtunity to make that 83% is available to those who seek it. That is why people come to this country. Funny, if those people are making 83% of the money then why aren’t they paying only 83% of the taxes? Could it be that they are paying for those who are here illegally or those who are just sapping the social welfare system?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:14 pmComment by TCDon — October 24, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
What about what could-have-been with that money? How many jobs would that have created HERE? How much of that money could we have invested into our own economy or better yet, ourselves? How much would we have not had to pay back in taxes?
What about those questions?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:15 pmPut a pretty woman in front of them and show a little cleavage and they won’t listen to what she saying.
The Perino/Bush combination could be Beauty and the Least.
We need Joe Friday to question this broad and get just the facts since we already know only a few good men can handle the truth.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:15 pmHow much of the supposed 2.4 trillion has been poured into the U.S. Economy? How many jobs have been created? How much has been paid back in tax dollars? Until you know the answers to these questions, talking only about “cost†is meaningless.
Comment by TCDon — October 24, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
btw, I found the answers. None on all counts. These are future projections of costs so none has been poured into the U.S. economy, no jobs have been created, no taxes paid.
Here’s some more questions for you, how many American & other lives will be lost while spending this money? How many is ok by you? Are you willing to risk your life or that of your family?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:15 pmDave, the oppurtunity to make that 83% is available to those who seek it. That is why people come to this country. Funny, if those people are making 83% of the money then why aren’t they paying only 83% of the taxes? Could it be that they are paying for those who are here illegally or those who are just sapping the social welfare system?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
I told you why, you’re too dumb to read. You have a progressive tax system. The more you make the higher the % tax you pay.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:16 pmHey Keith tell the $7.50 guy not to have kids when he’s only making $7.50 an hour. Tell that guy if that’s the situation he created for himself to go to night school on a government loan and improve his skill level for a higher paying job. Tell him to get off his butt and correct the problem that he created for himself. The rich didn’t make those babies.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:17 pm“They’re not running to socialism. I don’t see anyone getting on rafts to Cuba.”
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
No, they’re just running to a more successful brand of “socialism” here in the US.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:17 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
I don’t think he’s on his butt if he’s making $7.50 an hour with kids and a rent.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:18 pmDave, I know what it is dummy. How about if the lower 50% pay no tax and just shift that burden to the upper 50%. Then what will be the excuse? I make money and then give you some of it?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:19 pmSo Picklee you’re saying he has no way out, nothing whatsoever he can do? That’s what you’re saying right? No what he is saying is that he created a problem for himself and that the solution is too hard and we should pick up the check so that he doesn’t have to work too hard to fix it.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:21 pmWhat adds more to the US economy: spending trillions of dollars blowing up Iraq or spending far less on building homes and infrastructure in the USA? Remember we ain’t got the $2.4 Trillion in the first place!
You keep railing against socialism, but you know the government spending $2.4 Trillion destroying people and buildings in Iraq sure as hell is not free market capitalism.
Are the Swiss, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and Norweigans breaking their necks trying to get into the US? Answer that one!!!
October 24th, 2007 at 9:21 pm“Tell that guy if that’s the situation he created for himself to go to night school on a government loan and improve his skill level for a higher paying job.”
Go to school on a government loan?
Sounds dangerously like socialism…
October 24th, 2007 at 9:22 pmNo, they’re just running to a more successful brand of “socialism†here in the US.
Kind of weak there barfly.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:22 pmWho wouldn’t wish to carry a heavier tax burden if those moneys were used to assist those in need?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:22 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Nay. I was pointing out a fallacy in your statement. A quaint custom of the radical right.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:22 pmKind of weak there barfly.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
Can you tell me why?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:23 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
Maybe he was earning $50,000 per year under Clinton before W came in and destroyed jobs and wages. In many parts of California (not just the rich ones) $1,000 month rent gets you a below average one-bedroom apartment.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:24 pmAre the Swiss, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and Norweigans breaking their necks trying to get into the US? Answer that one!!!
Well Keith when Hitler was busy taking over Europe they were first in line to fight to protect the country and way of life weren’t they?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:25 pmMichael in drag:
Why aren’t school loans considered socialism?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:25 pmIt’s even worse that the dollar has inflated so much and is so weak against other foreign currencies since the Bush reign began.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:26 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
He can’t get a government loan or public education or job training because that comes under “SOCIALISM’.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:26 pmWell Keith when Hitler was busy taking over Europe they were first in line to fight to protect the country and way of life weren’t they?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
The topic is not 1930’s polity, it’s contemporaneous socialism.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:27 pmKeith do you just have an excuse for everyone? You know if that what happens then you do what you have to do? Many industries in this country have gone away. Look at textiles, electronics, steel….etc. Some of those job losses happened under all administrations over the past 25-30 years. Those people have had to learn different trades or skills and work in those industries which are growing here.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:29 pmHere is $2.4 trillion dollars:
$2,400,000,000,000,000,000,000.00
Just sayin’. How much of that do you think the Busheviks have stolen?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:29 pmPicklee you brought up those countries as your example. My response was that those countries do not defend themselves. They piggyback on the might of the US and its allies.
Try again.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:30 pmHere is $2.4 trillion dollars:
$2,400,000,000,000,000,000,000.00
Just sayin’. How much of that do you think the Busheviks have stolen?
None.
If we could get back all of the money stolen by those who cheat our social programs we would have that amount back and then some.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:32 pmWhy aren’t school loans considered socialism?
Uh, let me think this is a hard one……..uh because they’re supposed to be paid back?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:33 pmYou say whether or not someone is employed in a decent job is personal responsibility. That is obviously false since the job situation always improves going from Republican to Democratic administration and always worsens going from Democratic to Republican.
This flat out proves you wrong!!!!!!!!!!
October 24th, 2007 at 9:33 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Whose after the Danes, Swedes, Fins, etc? Maybe they are just running a quality program and thus their citizens enjoy high quality of life and don’t have many who want to screw with them. You seem to subscribe the the chimpanzee approach to humanity.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:34 pmHow much of the supposed 2.4 trillion has been poured into the U.S. Economy? How many jobs have been created? How much has been paid back in tax dollars? Until you know the answers to these questions, talking only about “cost†is meaningless.
Comment by TCDon — October 24, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
The RIGHTWING WACKJOB pasted the same thing on the Glenn Beck thread, so here’s MY response:
More RIGHTWING WACKJOB LIES.
War industry is CAPITAL INTENSIVE. The money benefits VERY FEW.
On the other hand, if you have $250,000 to build a home (or whatever the area bears), that money spent on a properly built home will feed
SEVERAL FAMILIES (electrical, plumbing, etc.), and when the home is completed, it will STILL be worth $250,000 or MORE.
THAT is how job creation works and benefits MANY.
When you blow up a bomb, there is NOTHING LEFT of value.
Again, only a FEW benefit from WAR.
So, if COST is “meaninglessâ€, WHY didn’t Bush’s people tell us what the COST would be??
EVERY country that has war has PLANNERS who KNOW an approximate value.
When Bush’s WAR CRIMINAL SHILLS were asked in 2002 and 2003 HOW MUCH the war would cost, the answer was “we have NO IDEAâ€.
WAR CRIMINAL LIARS and TRAITORS to the USA.
From TRAITOR Bush on down to supporters like YOU.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
October 24th, 2007 at 9:37 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Actually, Keith brought those countries to the floor.
I believe his point was that those Swiss, Dutch, Swedes, and Norwegians would rather keep their own stance on human rights, their own social programs that benefit their citizens, their own system that gives everyone equal access to the health system regardless of income, and their own morals on human dignity.
I believe that is why they are not “breaking their necks” to immigrate to the United States.
Their countries’ social and economic systems are far superior to that of the United States.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:37 pmKeith, Keith, Keith…..were are your facts?
Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years–from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes. Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush’s watch. Under Bill Clinton’s tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:38 pmThinkProgressPromotesSocialism is just another non-thinking follower of the mighty decider guy, because he’s the president and to question the president is to support the terrorists even if the president’s policies are the root cause of the terrorism.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:40 pmCanada is a SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY.
They take care of their people’s HEALTH, EDUCATION, and WELFARE.
It DOES cost in taxes, but they run a SURPLUS, and don’t squander their money on ILLEGAL WARS (where’s Osama 6 years later??).
So they are also SUPERIOR CAPITALISTS.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:41 pmPicklee, pay attention here this is important.
Those countries do not spend any of their GDP on defense. At least nothing meaningful. They rely on that expense being carried by the US and its allies. They know that we will not allow any country to invade them. It’s very smart on their part. They have quite wisely positioned themselves.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:42 pmMedian Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years–from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989 […]
What percentage of that did they lose to inflation?
[…] Under Bill Clinton’s tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.
But how much more did their dollar buy them because there was a surplus?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 9:42 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Hm. They have discovered peace in Europe! How wonderful it works and how many it benefits!
October 24th, 2007 at 9:43 pmTPPS, how about supplying a link instead of just plagiarizing an article that’s almost 12 years old, and only a couple years into Clinton’s presidency.
Want to try again?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:44 pmrightards willfully murder innocents for profit. no wonder the USA has lost its place in the world. a once-proud and strong nation is now no more than a hired mercenary force for oil companies. how shameful.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
But Reagan did it by adding $250 billion to the debt every year. You canot do that for long. A democrat had to come in and take us from record deficits to record surpluses. Then W took us from record surpluses to new record deficits.
Do you really think spening $2.4 TRILLION (that we ain’t got) blowing up people and things in Iraq is better for our economy than spending 5% of that for health, education, infrastructure, and housing——–as liberals propose?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pmHere’s your link on Canadian healthcare:
I think I’ll take ours.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:46 pmComment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
The only truth from this rightard is in his handle. rightards promote fascism and communism for the rich. murder for oil profits is what they achieve. reprehensible.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:46 pmhttp://www.cbc.ca/ health/ story/ 2007/ 10/ 15/ waittimes-fraser.html
October 24th, 2007 at 9:46 pmCanada’s dollar is now worth MORE than the US dollar.
http://finance.yahoo.com/ currency/ convert?amt=1&from=USD&to=CAD&submit=Convert
Again, not only SOCIALIST and taking care of their people properly, HEALTH, EDUCATION, and WELFARE,
but SUPERIOR CAPITALISTS as well…
October 24th, 2007 at 9:47 pmBoy Lefty that was convincing.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:47 pmomment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
that’s your link, another bullshit rightard talking point. Canadians are much better off, as a whole country. but rightards don’t care about their country, only their greedy selves. disgusting pigs.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:48 pmBoy Lefty that was convincing.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
it’s only truth, which you refuse to recognize through your ignorant ideology. not surprising that you don’t get it; you never learned to think for yourself.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:49 pmLefty your comebacks are so incredibly convincing I may have to consider the “that’s bullshit” argument.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:50 pmThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
October 24th, 2007 at 9:51 pmI am curious and hate to repeat myself but I really don’t understand and am interested in your take. Why would someone of any means not wish to give of the wealth no matter what the nature/size of such wealth might be in the interest of others? Thank you in advance for any response.
No Lefty you just want someone who is willing to work harder to pick up the check that you are not willing to earn.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:51 pmHere’s your link on Canadian healthcare:
I think I’ll take ours.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007
And the Canadians I speak with REGULARLY would NOT give up what THEY have for the FOR-PROFIT mess in the USA.
And they tell me that the “news” we see in the US is PROPAGANDA, especially Fox…
October 24th, 2007 at 9:52 pmI’m Canadian, I wouldn’t swap healthcare programs with the U.S. for a second.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:59 pmNo Lefty you just want someone who is willing to work harder to pick up the check that you are not willing to earn.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
Just another thoughtless, ignorant, uninformed talking point. You have no idea about my work, earning power or anything else, but we all know that you are a braindead, nonthinking fool who will follow the worst that humanity has to offer. Another unevolved, neandertal barbarian, undeserving of your citizenship. People like you foul the earth, and leave only scum and filth in their wakes. You’re just another Good German sheep, following those that would destroy the USA for a few bucks.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:59 pmI’m Canadian, I wouldn’t swap healthcare programs with the U.S. for a second.
Comment by Dave C — October 24, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Another satisfied customer of a SYSTEM THAT WORKS.
Thank you, Northern Friend.
I’ll be there soon (with money and job skills…)
October 24th, 2007 at 10:00 pmDave, the oppurtunity to make that 83% is available to those who seek it. That is why people come to this country. Funny, if those people are making 83% of the money then why aren’t they paying only 83% of the taxes? Could it be that they are paying for those who are here illegally or those who are just sapping the social welfare system?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
btw, if you think that it’s unfair that the top 50% earn 83% of the wages and pay 96% of the tax then tell me how much more tax are you willing to pay? Cus the same disproportionate earnings/taxes exists the higher your pay scale. So unless you’re making millions a year there are many that are paying a higher % in tax then you are. How much more do you think you should pay? It’s not like your country can reduce taxes since your debt/deficit is so fricking high already. So how much are you willing to increase your own taxes to make it more fair for the millionaires?
October 24th, 2007 at 10:01 pm“Uh, let me think this is a hard one……..uh because they’re supposed to be paid back?”
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
At a very low interest rate. Lower than one could procure outside the student loan system. Your answer lacks validity.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:03 pmTPPR has had every point totally destroyed on this thread, yet refuses to see the truth, and has no answers to any of the very good questions raised. Hitler would have loved him.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:03 pmdbadass……Here’s my take on this. No matter what you form of government it is human nature for some people, in fact a lot of people to either outwork, outperform, have more power whatever. Look around the same crap goes on in other countries. But the answers for some form of fairness really are not that difficult.
Let’s take healthcare since that seems to be a big ticket item. I work for a hospital in the financial area so I know a thing or two about the dollars. Our hospital takes in everyone including those who cannot pay, those in jail or prison or whatever. But a lot of bs goes on that would not if people had to pay something. What is being done all over the country is financial evaluation. Determining people’s ability to pay. They say that 40 million people are not insured. Not 40 million are getting no healthcare. The answer is to bring down costs. No one should be getting multi million dollar jury awards for a tragedy. Unnecessary medical procedures that are performed by doctors to avoid all possibilities of misdiagnosis are killing costs. So tort reform would help. Catastrophic healthcare coverage for all Americans is a smart piece of legislation. Once an event exceeds a certain dollar it would be covered by the government. Free care is a mistake and we are seeing it today. Ask yourself how did healthcare become a problem in the last 30 years. What happened? Costs.
In general terms, reduce costs and protect citizens from financial disaster due to serious health occurrences.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:05 pm“Let’s take healthcare since that seems to be a big ticket item. I work for a hospital in the financial area so I know a thing or two about the dollars. ”
It’s michael, in drag. Why don’t you come out of the weeds Mike? We all know it’s you.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:07 pmPicklee you brought up those countries as your example. My response was that those countries do not defend themselves. They piggyback on the might of the US and its allies.
Try again.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Which, by the way, is more of your bullshit. Those countries have formed a coalition among themselves and others, wisely indeed. if the Deserter-In-Chief had formed a real coalition prior to his illegal invasion, perhaps we would not be getting the shit kicked out of us every day in Iraq. But, being an illegal invasion and occupation, he couldn’t get other countries more moral than ours to go along. Funny about that, but it does show how ridiculous your “thinking” is.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:08 pmbarfly…you are really amazing.
Let’s say the student runs up 100,000 in debt and gets a 5% loan rather than, let’s say 9%. If he pays back the 100k plus the interest that’s an investment by the US not a socialistic gift of 100k.
Get it?
October 24th, 2007 at 10:08 pmAn occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, based on lies about weapons of mass destruction. Money that should have either not been spent at all, or spent building our economy as a bulwark against the real threat - China’s economy. 2,500 killed on 9/11? How many have been killed by the traitors in the White House?
But you knuckle-draggers have to have your wars, and there’s nothing we can do about it. BushCo and you 25%’ers ought to be ashamed, but you don’t really care about things do you? Might is right, everything else is worthless.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:09 pmLefty those countries couldn’t defend their sovereignty for a day. Quite frankly that is a piss poor argument and you know it.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:10 pmn general terms, reduce costs and protect citizens from financial disaster due to serious health occurrences.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Meaning, take it out of the for-profit world, and let the government provide the massive pool of insurance needed for proper care, as all other industrialized nations have done. Your tort reform argument has been debunked over and over again; it’s the insurance companies driving up costs.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:11 pmThank you for your thoughts but I don’t think that addresses the question. I am of modest means yet would be happy to have my taxes increased to see to it that all shared in the bounty of the common good. I asked why others might not seek the opportunity to enjoy the richness of such humanity. Socialism may not be ideal but it should beats “me first”
October 24th, 2007 at 10:11 pmLefty those countries couldn’t defend their sovereignty for a day. Quite frankly that is a piss poor argument and you know it.
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Not surprisingly, you missed the point entirely, and your statement is a lie on its face, since those countries are all free and sovereign. More bullshit from you, how predictable.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:12 pm“Catastrophic healthcare coverage for all Americans is a smart piece of legislation. Once an event exceeds a certain dollar it would be covered by the government. Free care is a mistake and we are seeing it today. ”
What we are really seeing today is coverage being denied until the illness is so serious, possible cures and therapy become useless.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:12 pm” If he pays back the 100k plus the interest that’s an investment by the US not a socialistic gift of 100k.
Get it?”
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
The program itself could be considered socialism, for the reasons I’ve mentioned. Not really my problem if you’re too dense to comprehend.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:14 pmThinkProgressPromotesSocialism you haven’t answered my question. How much of a tax increase are you willing to take to make it fair for all of the millionaires currently giving you social assistance?
October 24th, 2007 at 10:14 pmdbadass…actually I did answer your question. I said it runs against human nature. People seek advantages over others. They are not satisfied with equality. Again human nature. Take a socialist government. There is corruption beyond belief as people seek to have more than others. So if that is the case why not follow the path of a rising tide lifts all boats?
October 24th, 2007 at 10:15 pmDave are you assuming that I receive social assistance?
October 24th, 2007 at 10:15 pmLet’s say the student runs up 100,000 in debt and gets a 5% loan rather than, let’s say 9%. If he pays back the 100k plus the interest that’s an investment by the US not a socialistic gift of 100k.
Get it?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
So you supported midnight basketball as well as job training for prisoners, drug rehab, head start and all the rest of the intelligent upfront investments of tax dollars which pay off down the line I am assuming?
October 24th, 2007 at 10:16 pm” Take a socialist government. There is corruption beyond belief as people seek to have more than others.”
Same as capitalism. Your point?
October 24th, 2007 at 10:17 pmHey, you guys want to see something really, really stupid -
“Any Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism ”
There you go, as stupid as they get. This sure sounds like someone else we all know….mmmmm…..new name, same idiot.
Buck Fush
October 24th, 2007 at 10:17 pmOf course, socialism is an advanced, humaistic concept that should be embraced and worked into the capitalist system. It’s not a dirty word as righties would like to paint it; in fact, America grew strong and prosperous after WW2 with that very mix. The right’s sneering dismissal of it shows their rank ignorance and extreme greed and selfishness. No surprise there.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:17 pmDave are you assuming that I receive social assistance?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
all Americans receive social assistance. it’s called civilization.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:19 pmdbadass…. I support programs for those willing to participate in them. I don’t support programs that are not directed at correcting one’s situation.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:20 pm“Of course, socialism is an advanced, humaistic concept that should be embraced and worked into the capitalist system.”
Socialism and humanism, the twin bugaboos of the Right.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:20 pmbarfly are you a socialist?
October 24th, 2007 at 10:21 pmAh but that is where you are wrong and you must have missed my chimp comment. Many evolutionary biologists feel we are probably more closely related to our bonobo kin and less so to the chimps. Our view of human nature as a function of male dominated aggressive self interest may just be that we didn’t discover the bonobos until later. This potential fallacy continues to be perpetuated without regard to the distinct possibilty that it may be fundamentally flawed
October 24th, 2007 at 10:21 pmDave are you assuming that I receive social assistance?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Considering the degree of debililtation, due to chronic mental illness, you exhibit, I’d take a guess and say yer on SSI.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:22 pm” I said it runs against human nature. People seek advantages over others. They are not satisfied with equality. Again human nature.”
Actually, you’re describing Republicans and rightwing pigs. Real Americans are happy to share and help out, and real Americans stand up and fight for equality; it is the whole basis of our system of laws and the Constitution. You are not a real American. What you are describing as human nature is in fact not-quite-human nature. If you were fully-evolved, you would see that.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:22 pm“I don’t support programs that are not directed at correcting one’s situation.”
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
So if someone’s starving, you don’t mind giving him/her foodstamps? Their situation is one of abject hunger, so if foodstamps “corrects” the situation, you’re for it?
October 24th, 2007 at 10:23 pmLefty even the millionaire’s that Dave says are supporting others? So they are really being supported too. Somewhere lies the mystery supporter responsible for all the support. I get it.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:23 pm“barfly are you a socialist?”
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism
You say that like its a BAD thing. Better than being a fascist…
October 24th, 2007 at 10:24 pmDave are you assuming that I receive social assistance?
Comment by ThinkProgressPromotesSocialism — October 24, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Read slower. I’m doub