32 Million Tax Refunds Could Be Delayed

<p>Eva, I fixed my goof. But don't play coy, either. You were right there to dump the blame for AMT not getting fixed on Iraq. You can choose to parse words if you want, but you know exactly the point you were trying to make, and it's bullshit.</p>

<p>mino, thanks. No, I'm not a big supporter of Ron Paul and any similarity to our ranting style is completely accidental. Some times common sense just seems like collusion. Or were you implying that I swiped his argument?</p>
 
Nude....no I wasn't implying that you swiped Ron Paul's argument at all. He is just one of the bigger GOP proponents of the Fair Tax initiative that I think is a very good idea but needs some massaging. On top of that he is always all over the FED about inflation and he did say going to war with Iraq was a violation of the constitution....I forget exactly how that was though.
 
Realistically, with the Iraq spending, it's quite unfair to say "spend less."



Maybe other things can be cut, but until the massive drain on the budget is stopped, it's pointless to start elsewhere.
 
<i>"he did say going to war with Iraq was a violation of the constitution....I forget exactly how that was though."</i><p>


IIRC - There are provisions is The Constitution for declaring war and waging war. Bush and the legislative branch circumvented The Constitution. Most folks forget, but the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was that he was enforcing the United Nations resolutions. There is no Constitutional provision for enforcing UN resolutions, nor is there any provision for using the US armed forces for UN purposes of any type. If it was neccesary for the US to go invade Iraq, there were Constitutional procedures for doing so.
 
<p>Nah Trooper, just tired of people handing out kool-aid. </p>

<p>jw, we've spent ~$351 Billion on Operation: Iraqi Freedom since 2003 according to the CBO. During that same period of time we spent over $1700 Billion on domestic, non-military items. Now, from 2003 to 2006, our gross domestic product was $47.66 TRILLION. So.. to recap...in the last few years we've spent 80% more on helping ourselves than we did in Iraq, or 0.7% of our entire economy during that time. It's not "pointless to start elsewhere", it's <strong>pointless not to start</strong>. Even if we never spent a dime in Iraq this year, we would still have a budget deficit of 106 Billion dollars for this year. 106 BILLION!!!! No war, big deficit anyway. Do you not see the folly in your logic?</p>
 
<p>Dr. Evil style deficit plan: (warining: sarcasm alert )</p>

<p>1. Let the young people borrow way too much buying houses</p>

<p>2. Let inflation run wild and bail them out and also erode the amount of federal debt owed . But index the old person benefits (ex. pensions and such) to an official measure that's way lower than the real inflation. </p>

<p>3. The old people now cost less to support. Also, their health may not be too good from all the stress and so some of them die early, further reducing support costs.</p>

<p>Victory declared.</p>
 
<p>Effenheimer-style reaction plan.</p>

<p>1. Use a ton of credit to buy a whole mess of gold.</p>

<p>2. Bury it in the back yard.</p>

<p>3. Default when everyone else does.</p>

<p>Victory shall be mine!</p>
 
1. I'm not sure how the GDP is relevant considering quantifying absolute government revenue would be a better indicator. Regardless, the GDP deflator is cooked so I don't believe anything that's based on US GDP.





2. Pentagon spending accounts for more than 1/3 of our budget and the US without Iraq and Afghanistan accounts for nearly 50% of the world's defense spending. Without acknowledging the folly of wasting gobs of money on needless defense spending, no other arguments about domestic programs register with me. It's the sole reason why I'll take people like Paul seriously when it comes to domestic spending, because he openly acknowledges defense spending is out of control.





From my camp, unless we're willing to make big cuts to massive overspending in the Pentagon, I don't even want to start talking about "entitlement" programs. If we're willing to be serious about one, we should be just as serious about the other. And yes, we'd still have a deficit, but not near as bad as it is currently. No doubt there is waste, but if we're excluding the #1 cause of government waste from the formula, what's the point?
 
Scroll up, jw, I'm already on board with across-the-board reductions. As for your numbers vs. my numbers, I'm using the CBO's published reports from it's website. I don't see the percentages you cite, but I'll be more than happy to look them over if you care to provide the source.
 
<em>>>You were right there to dump the blame for AMT not getting fixed on Iraq. You can choose to parse words if you want, but you know exactly the point you were trying to make, and it's bullshit.</em>





Nude, you are more slippery than a greased pig.





But I have to give you props for moving the goal posts. Often people do not pay attention to the details, and how one frames an issue generally determines his/her success.





On the merits, you might wish to re-read the thread. In lieu of that, here's the short version:





Nude: Hey, here's an idea: <strong><u>spend less money</u></strong>.





ELS: I would have loved to have not spent several hundreds of billions of dollars [on] . . . invad[ing] Iraq.





It's a free country and you can read into it what you like, but all I put out there was one of the things I think we wasted money on.





And it's Google time. What Dem in the last four years said, "the military/Iraq is the reason for deficits and debt." You can talk about Tip all you like, but the party is different now than it was then. Yes, I know, you'll probably find it, and then I'll have to talk about how Rep. Barbara Lee is the is at the edge of the debate and not the mainstream of the party.
 
<p>Eva, let's just save each other the hassle of verifying sources and stipulate that The Left(tm) thinks Iraq (and defense spending, in general) is a waste of time, money, and lives and that The Right(tm) feels the same way about Democrats. </p>

<p>You could have named any one of a dozen boondoggles being financed by taxes and I would have been critical for the exact same reason: The current leadership and holder of the purse-strings (Pelosi, et al) isn't talking about cutting government spending to offset the reduction in revenue from a tax that was never meant to be levied on the people who will be payng it, they are talking about increasing taxes. If your income doesn't match your expenses, you either get another job, or get a better job, or you QUIT SPENDING SO DAMN MUCH!</p>

<p>Again... one standard being applied to homeowners, brokers, and bankers, another for people who are elected to fulfill the promises of the founding fathers, both of whom are spending other people's money.</p>

<p>jw, our spending relative to the world is completely irrelevant. The second best defense still lives in fear of number one and given a choice between the available options, I'll always support being the top dog. I was actually referring to the numbers purporting that the Pentagon accounts for 1/3 of our budget. According to the CBO numbers, the total defense budget in 2006 was $520 Billion, total spent was $2655.4 Billion which appears to be about 1/5, not 1/3. And for 2006, the CBO estimates Iraq AND Afghanistan was 20% of that total. Now, I have a question for you: Last year the Federal government spent 460 Billion dollars in "domestic discretionary funds", and that is on top of what the individual states, counties, and cities are also spending; why?</p>
 
I have no problem being the #1 defense spender. The point is they could half their spending and we'd still be #1 far and away.





It *does* matter what we spend relative to the rest of the world when the gap is so large.


Pardon, I heard 1/3 on the radio but Wikipedia says 19%. You're right.





I still don't see the diference.





WIthout reform to our runaway defense budget there is no point discussing domestic programs in my view. To rip on all programs as "wasteful" yet staunchly defend (and in many cases want to increase) defense spending like most Repub candidates is missing the point.
 
<p>Nude, I wish I could be eloquent....but I'm not. This Lefty (tm) thinks invading Iraq was for oil. period. It's time to get the hell out.</p>
 
<p>Iraq wasn't for oil. It's the napoleonistic ego spasm of an drug junkie, once upon a time reformed although questionable if still so, having found religion intending on creating a glorious biblical style legacy. </p>

<p>After watching our clown in chief today deny the current Iran findings I can't help but be fearful that the only voice our President listens to is the one in his head he mistakingly thinks is the one in the sky coming from God.</p>

<p>And yes, I'm a registered Orange County Republican.</p>

<p> </p>
 
NSR - We may have disagreed on the blog page, but I will give credit where it is due....That is one of the better characterizations of the current state of our leadership that I have seen. Agree fully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top