imagine if 10 percent of what went to iraq went to the infrastructure and then like 10 percent went to health care and then 80 percent went back to the tax payers

2/28/2008 11:36:10 PM

balack obama

2/28/2008 11:37:36 PM

Quote :

"how do you recommend we pay for the 4 trillion dollars we spent on iraq?"

hahah, who the fuck told you that. 4 Trillion? If you believe that you are a moron and no doubt a democrat.

We spent over 100 Billion in Iraq last year. We spent about 1.6 TRILLION on entitlements and 800Billion on healthcare for the elderly and the poor last YEAR. Cant wait to figure out what it will cost to cover the majority of the population.

People that post shit like 4 Trillion on iraq are the people that believe they pay more taxes than warren buffet.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 11:39 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2008 11:39:02 PM

Quote :

"you're companies are competing against governments who don't collect as much money to protect the environment, its citizens, or Iraq. You need to adjust them accordingly. "

i'm not saying this is without exception...

but sometimes if another country can produce it more cheaply than we can, it makes sense to just buy it from them.

^^ the federal government shouldn't be involved in health care, and it shouldn't really be responsible for most of the infrastructure...

and Iraq isn't coming out of state budgets.

^^ i suspect that most people in this thread pay little or no tax, and receive back greater value than they contribute.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM. Reason : asdfads]

2/28/2008 11:39:38 PM

duke: i agree, everyone should be burdened by it, but no one is willing to. everyone wants lower taxes and theyre thinking about now instead of the future. you cant have lower taxes now without expecting your retirement to pay for all the shit we've caused. you have to pick one or the other ( i realize its not as simple as that) but we're in a shitty situation and we have to deal with it

callaway: this is a great example of why poor people and rich people dont eat together. they eat in separate restaurants and these problems do not exist. i do appreciate you finding the scenario

2/28/2008 11:40:28 PM

ok what would have happened if all the money we spent in iraq went to the national deficit?

2/28/2008 11:41:45 PM

Quote :

"but sometimes if another country can produce it more cheaply than we can, it makes sense to just buy it from them."

but this can still come at the tax payer's expense. amiright?

i apologize for the "you're" incident earlier. it won't happen again.

2/28/2008 11:42:06 PM

Quote :

"you really think we need to spend the amount we're spending on Iraq on roads, bridges, dams, etc...in addition to what we already spend on them?"

I'm in highway design and have taken transportation engineering and we've been over the money situation on this stuff. The state's get some support from the federal government, but nowhere near the amount that could actually design and build stuff that would last for another 20 or even 50 years.

So yes, I think spending some percentage of the Iraq war funds on roads, bridges, dams, etc would help out the country a shitload. Also, spending money on infrastructure will general more revenue where as war doesn't.

2/28/2008 11:42:27 PM

all im saying is i would rather spend the money on things that matter. like healthcare for example. you say we spent 100 billion in iraq and 800 billion on healthcare for the poor and elderly. id say healthcare for the poor and elderly is more than 8 times as important as rebuilding another country. its just an opinion

2/28/2008 11:43:08 PM

Does anyone find it ironic that on one day politicians are stumbling overthemselves to give money back to the people to help the economy. Tax cuts helped spur the economy 7 yrs ago.

However, NOW the way to help the economy is by RAISING taxes.

How about this. Stop penalizing people for working and doing responsible things, only to reward those who choose not too and continue to get bailed out for thier irresponsible behaviors.

2/28/2008 11:43:39 PM

i thought the dems said health care is like 80 billion dollars...whats this 800 billion number coming from?

2/28/2008 11:44:49 PM

Quote :

"i suspect that most people in this thread pay little or no tax, and receive back greater value than they contribute."

Cause we're poor college kids.

2/28/2008 11:45:04 PM

Quote :

"duke: i agree, everyone should be burdened by it, but no one is willing to. everyone wants lower taxes and theyre thinking about now instead of the future. you cant have lower taxes now without expecting your retirement to pay for all the shit we've caused. you have to pick one or the other ( i realize its not as simple as that) but we're in a shitty situation and we have to deal with it callaway: this is a great example of why poor people and rich people dont eat together. they eat in separate restaurants and these problems do not exist. i do appreciate you finding the scenario "

exactly my point...everyone wants to have their cake and eat it, too, conveniently financed by the big, bad, "rich"...which people somehow rationalize as being fair.

I'm not rich--I'm smack in the middle of the middle class income-wise and will be for the foreseeable future (i mean, like, for the next 15+ years, at LEAST). I'm just honest with myself that fucking over the rich isn't fair at all.

...that, and I plan on being rich one of these days, even if I do it through disciplined investing rather than ever making a huge income.



oh, and i would say that poor and lower middle class people absolutely do eat at the same places as plenty of rich people do. from what i've seen--to include a lot of people i've known personally on both sides of the spectrum--poor people blow money like it's cool, especially as a percentage of their disposable income.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 11:56 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

2/28/2008 11:47:18 PM

duke you struck me as kinda rich honestly...you were talking about paying child support once and you made a thread about buying vehicles i thought once...i always figured since you were an engineer and in the army you were rich

2/28/2008 11:49:00 PM

i was just kidding about poor and rich people eating at different locations to be a dick but i'm not sure i understand you correctly, are you saying that obama is planning on taxing the shit out of the rich and thats how we're gonna turn this country around? i dont get how you think the rich is getting screwed by any of this and even though he may have plans to tax the rich, do you think that plan is gonna go over well/?

2/28/2008 11:51:12 PM

Quote :

"i thought the dems said health care is like 80 billion dollars...whats this 800 billion number coming from? "

They tend to say alot of BS, just most of their supporters dont care to look shit up. Remember hillary saying to elect democrats in 2006 if you want gas to get cheaper? haha

Here is a link to 2007 federal spending. Keep in mind this doesnt include portions of medicaid paid by states. So total spending would be higher.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/d/dd/Fbs_us_fy2007.png

Pink, why should anyone who works take home less of a percentage of their income than someone else?

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2008 11:51:55 PM

Quote :

"So yes, I think spending some percentage of the Iraq war funds on roads, bridges, dams, etc would help out the country a shitload. Also, spending money on infrastructure will general more revenue where as war doesn't. "

the Feds shouldn't be subsidizing the States...taxpayers in NY shouldn't be paying for bridges in CA.

However, this also means that the Feds should be taxing much, much less, and the States should be taxing somewhat more (which in addition to being Constitutional, would be more efficient financially, and more fair, to boot).

oh, and war does generate revenue. I'm not saying it's a black ink affair, by any means...but neither is revamping infrastructure.

Quote :

"all im saying is i would rather spend the money on things that matter. like healthcare for example. you say we spent 100 billion in iraq and 800 billion on healthcare for the poor and elderly. id say healthcare for the poor and elderly is more than 8 times as important as rebuilding another country. its just an opinion "

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles (16 km) square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.



...not to provide federal government funded healthcare.

If you think this is a good idea (I do not, but whatever), let it be enacted at the state level.

2/28/2008 11:55:11 PM

do rappers get tax cuts? can u write off buying lambos as business purchases

2/28/2008 11:55:23 PM

Fair Tax to the Rescue!

2/29/2008 12:02:21 AM

Quote :

"the Feds shouldn't be subsidizing the States...taxpayers in NY shouldn't be paying for bridges in CA."

The Feds subsidize after the State DOTs present their case and prove that they need the money for projects. If you can't make a good claim, you don't get any money.

A NYer can visit CA and drive those roads though. I think that if you restrict only state money to state roads, states would start tolling or taxing their roads for people who don't live in their states.

Truck traffic would be fucked too.

Trains would be fucked too.

2/29/2008 12:05:55 AM

Quote :

"duke you struck me as kinda rich honestly...you were talking about paying child support once and you made a thread about buying vehicles i thought once...i always figured since you were an engineer and in the army you were rich "

haha, anyone can pay child support. if you managed to get a girl pregnant and have a baby, you'd be paying, too.

that's another fucked up set of laws to argue in another thread (i've already made it--it's in Old School)...the short story is that I pay so much in child support that my daughter's mother doesn't have to contribute financially at all...AND I effectively make her car payment for her, and probably a little more.

as far as buying vehicles, easily the most expensive car I've ever owned is my $26k Evo. I make $64k/year (don't mind divulging it--anyone with Google, a calculator, and 5 minutes to spare could look it up very easily). I pay $12,084 in child support, so it's really like $52k/year. That's enough to make ends meet comfortably, but it's definitely not rich.

if you're thinking about what kind of background I grew up in financially, it ranged from lower middle class (dad cut hair and mom didn't work) to upper middle class (dad managed an insurance agency and mom was a secretary).

...and yes, my degree is in mech eng, but I'm in the Marines (not the Army). I don't do engineering work, though--I fly airplanes (not that the pay is any different, anyway...other than $150/month in flight pay).

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 12:07 AM. Reason : ^truck and train traffic isn't paying ANYONE to use those roads and rails as it stands now?]

2/29/2008 12:06:18 AM

fairtax would be the "fairest". People would control thier spending. No tax on working, saving, and investing. Just taxes on spending.

Flat tax would be the next best thing. Everyone takes home the same percentage of income.

What either of those plans would do is end this class warfare and govt growth. All people would have to pay some amount to fund these new plans. Right now its too easy to propose all new plans with someone elses money.

They also end you being taxed to death. You are taxed on your income. If you invest that money and earn interest, you are taxed on that. If you buy an investment with that money, you are taxed again. When you die, you get taxed when its given to whoever you want to give "your" money too. The fairtax gives people THIER money back. After all YOU worked for it, not the govt.

2/29/2008 12:07:29 AM

2/29/2008 12:10:57 AM

2/29/2008 12:13:28 AM

Quote :

"The Feds subsidize after the State DOTs present their case and prove that they need the money for projects. If you can't make a good claim, you don't get any money. A NYer can visit CA and drive those roads though. I think that if you restrict only state money to state roads, states would start tolling or taxing their roads for people who don't live in their states. Truck traffic would be fucked too. Trains would be fucked too. "

Then the Feds collect money in taxes to return to the states, after taking a cut off the top to feed the requisite bureaucracy. At this point, the states get back some lesser percentage of what their citizens paid in taxes, and they have to spend it as deemed fit by people in Washington.

How does it possibly make sense to have roads in CA, regulated by people in DC, paid for by people in FL, TX, and NY, with the Federal gov't being the bagman in the middle and taking a cut which amounts to pure waste?


Those trucks and trains don't run for free right now. They're paying all the same, just not directly and quite as tangibly in the form of tolls and such.

2/29/2008 12:14:09 AM

Quote :

"^truck and train traffic isn't paying ANYONE to use those roads and rails as it stands now?"

Explain, I don't get what you're saying.

2/29/2008 12:14:23 AM

Ace to the rescue?

2/29/2008 12:15:57 AM

Quote :

"fairtax would be the "fairest". People would control thier spending. No tax on working, saving, and investing. Just taxes on spending. Flat tax would be the next best thing. Everyone takes home the same percentage of income. What either of those plans would do is end this class warfare and govt growth. All people would have to pay some amount to fund these new plans. Right now its too easy to propose all new plans with someone elses money. They also end you being taxed to death. You are taxed on your income. If you invest that money and earn interest, you are taxed on that. If you buy an investment with that money, you are taxed again. When you die, you get taxed when its given to whoever you want to give "your" money too. The fairtax gives people THIER money back. After all YOU worked for it, not the govt. "

I hear the argument about a flat tax being effectively regressive, and think that there is some substantial merit to that viewpoint.

The FairTax would be better than what we have now, I believe, but still not the perfect solution.

I'm intrigued by the idea of a European-style VAT.

maybe the solution would be to slash income taxes by, say, 50%, then make up the difference with some sort of consumption tax (i.e., approach the problem from both angles).

In any case, the current tax code is the most overgrown, ridiculous clusterfuck conceivable, and should be GROSSLY simplified.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ^^ still don't get it after my subsequent post, or are you with me now?]

2/29/2008 12:18:16 AM

Quote :

"In any case, the current tax code is the most overgrown, ridiculous clusterfuck conceivable, and should be GROSSLY simplified."

2/29/2008 12:21:32 AM

Quote :

"In any case, the current tax code is the most overgrown, ridiculous clusterfuck conceivable, and should be GROSSLY simplified. "

2/29/2008 12:21:35 AM

I'm saying trucking companies drive all over the roads and trains haul shit everywhere as well.

Which state should they give their tax money too? If it goes to the fed and comes back to the states then they don't have to deal with sorting out what state needs what amount of tax money.


Another thing, some states have Truck only roads. Most tax payers will never drive those roads. Even people in that state won't get to drive those roads. Should the road be supported by the trucking companies of that state only?

2/29/2008 12:29:24 AM

the trucking companies obviously wouldn't just pick a state to pay money to.

they'd probably pay some to their home state in business licensing fees, etc.

they might pay some in tolls, or in fixed-rate fees to operate in specific states.

I'm not enough of a subject matter expert, and this isn't really the proper forum to delineate every tiny detail, but you get the idea.

part of my point is that the Feds are ill-equipped to sort out what each state needs..why not, you know, let each state figure out what it needs? I mean, who would know better?

in addition, competition would drive efficiency, and you wouldn't have the Feds pissing away a percentage of it as basically a processing fee.


I will concede that situations could arise where the Feds would have both the need and the legal right to intervene in one way or another (as per the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce). However, the way it is currently operated is neither constitutional, nor practical, nor fair.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 12:46 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

2/29/2008 12:43:47 AM

K, I just think since a good infrastructure is part of what shapes a good country, the federal government should have a hand in helping making it better(see: $$$).

2/29/2008 12:52:34 AM

then pass an amendment making that sort of thing legal.

otherwise, let the states build, fix, or burn their own bridges.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 1:07 AM. Reason : i'm not against having good infrastructure]

2/29/2008 1:07:07 AM

well what about the poorer states?

2/29/2008 1:08:42 AM

well, part of why they're poor is because not many people live there

because of that, they don't need as many roads, bridges, etc


regardless, it's kinda like individual taxes--i'm not cool with redistribution of wealth.

2/29/2008 1:11:59 AM

i think they need to make the constitution more up to date...that was wrote too long ago

2/29/2008 1:13:36 AM

^Haha

^^That's why what we have now is working and wont be changed for a while because contributions to states are prioritized based on need.

2/29/2008 1:16:07 AM

so do many federal judges

which fucks our system up to no end.

2/29/2008 1:16:16 AM

honestly i dont like the supreme court anymore....it needs to be more people or something....if like 7 of the 9 were hardcore conservatives that were like 50 years old and they stay til they are 80 that would be 30 years of one group of people running the show

2/29/2008 1:24:04 AM

Quote :

"Another thing, some states have Truck only roads. Most tax payers will never drive those roads. Even people in that state won't get to drive those roads. Should the road be supported by the trucking companies of that state only?"

Are you talking about truck routes? You can drive a car on those. It's just another word for a bypass to the business route, except that trucks are prohibited on the business route.

2/29/2008 1:25:58 AM

the flipside of the lifetime appointments is that they aren't nearly as subject to shifts in political climate. it's another interal brake that exists to keep us from impulsively doing dumb things.

of course, how they rationalize certain things being constitutional is beyond me and, uhh, creative, to say the least. i'm not as conservative as some when it comes to the 10th Amendment and holding strictly to enumerated powers, but they molest the Constitution to allow whatever they want to do--not let what is legally allowed govern, well, how they govern.

2/29/2008 1:29:13 AM

i just hate how the religious right has a firm grip on the republican party and therefore any judge that comes from the republican party at the moment will be hardcore conservative

2/29/2008 1:31:14 AM

Quote :

"Are you talking about truck routes? You can drive a car on those. It's just another word for a bypass to the business route, except that trucks are prohibited on the business route."

No.

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

2/29/2008 1:32:38 AM

Oh, well that's new to me.

2/29/2008 1:34:17 AM

Their website says it will integrate other vehicles besides trucks, but we were informed in class that it will be truck only. I'm not sure.

2/29/2008 1:36:19 AM

It seems like the Trans-Texas Corridor will be that corridor in Texas, and I know they're planning it for cars as well.

2/29/2008 1:38:03 AM

Yes, Rat, and Bush has done a good job stimulating the American Economy...how about you stop posting and go re-take Micro/Macro Economics bud! Obama has more intelligence in his pinky finger than Bush and his entire cabinet!!

There is a REASON he has won 11 straight primaries bud..so just DEAL WITH IT!! OBAMA in 2008!!

2/29/2008 2:02:51 AM

god damn there is some stupidity in this thread

2/29/2008 2:10:49 AM

The only serious discussion that belongs in chit-chat should relate to alcohol policies. Once you get off on economics the thread is doomed.

2/29/2008 2:12:21 AM