• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cost of War, in Real Time!

new coup for you said:
and even if money wasnt an issue, i'm GLAD my mom has a job. i'm sure its made her feel more fufilled as a person.

Yeah, because there's nothing fufilling about raising your children and seeing that they turn out to be good productive, respectful members of society.

Back on topic, I'll state it again. Pre-school is un necessary, and I'm glad my tax dollars are going to the defense of this country rather than into the programs listed on that website, that I don't & would never support
 
ILikeDubyah said:
Pretty much, this is America, the land of oppertunity...make something of yourself. Now, if charities & non profit organizations want to help these people out, God Bless them, but it's not, nor should it be required that the government does so.

And if charities don't what? You are okay with letting a mother and her three children starve to death?

One of the vital functions of the government is to protect the weak for this very reason. It is because we have evoloved past the time of barbarianism. We (for the most part) realize that if everyone was only concerned for ourselves, we would still be flinging poo at each other. That is why societies were created. Because humans do better when they are organized. And this orginization helps to insure that the weaker among us are protected. If you see a helpless child on the side of the road, crying for it's mother, do you keep on driving? No. You stop and help him out. Because we all should realize that at some point in our lives, we could be that crying child: helpless, lost, with no idea what to do, and no means to do it. We have put this altuistic sense that (most) humans have into a better use than individual actions. Because, let's face it, there are people that will keep on driving. And is that child, or abused women, or elderly person who just lost their life savings any less deserving of aid because a particular person is cold hearted? We have charged the government with helping these people out because that it the best way to get aid to them. And that is what matters in the end. That someone stops, gives the kid a hug, some food, and helps him find his mom.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
Yeah, because there's nothing fufilling about raising your children and seeing that they turn out to be good productive, respectful members of society.

Back on topic, I'll state it again. Pre-school is un necessary, and I'm glad my tax dollars are going to the defense of this country rather than into the programs listed on that website, that I don't & would never support

my mom DID raise me, so did my dad. but my mom isnt an extension of me- she has (and needs to have) a life outside of her children. i already have a really overly maternal mom, i loathe to think what it'd be like (how many cell phone calls i'd get after 1AM) if all she had to occupy her time with was her kids.
 
Kelzie said:
And if charities don't what? You are okay with letting a mother and her three children starve to death?

One of the vital functions of the government is to protect the weak for this very reason. It is because we have evoloved past the time of barbarianism. We (for the most part) realize that if everyone was only concerned for ourselves, we would still be flinging poo at each other. That is why societies were created. Because humans do better when they are organized. And this orginization helps to insure that the weaker among us are protected. If you see a helpless child on the side of the road, crying for it's mother, do you keep on driving? No. You stop and help him out. Because we all should realize that at some point in our lives, we could be that crying child: helpless, lost, with no idea what to do, and no means to do it. We have put this altuistic sense that (most) humans have into a better use than individual actions. Because, let's face it, there are people that will keep on driving. And is that child, or abused women, or elderly person who just lost their life savings any less deserving of aid because a particular person is cold hearted? We have charged the government with helping these people out because that it the best way to get aid to them. And that is what matters in the end. That someone stops, gives the kid a hug, some food, and helps him find his mom.

It may be the best way to get aid to them, but you have to realize that the aid would be less, both in quantity & quality. The government would have to hire people & pay them government salaries to administrate and carry out aid functions, which means even more money would be coming out of our pockets to cover the cost. There goes the quantity. What if the fictional person you speak of has a job....suddenly they're receiving less in their paycheck to be able to pay for such aid, therefore keeping them DEPENDANT on government aid....Why would we do this????
The people paid for doing the work involved are doing the work to get paid (most of them) which means they really don't care about what they're doing, they're just going to do enough work as to not get fired....and being that hey work for the government, they only have to do about an hours worth of work a day to keep their jobs...there goes the quality. Charities on the other hand are around for the specific purpose of helping others, and the people that donate time to them are there only to be selfless & help. Most of these charities are non/little profit....what do you know, you have quality & quantity of care back...
 
Yea, the cost definetly isn't worth it at all. First off, how many billions of tax-payer dollars does it tally up to? And how many people died? What did we accomplish? O yea, that's right, a quagmire. This war did nothing but fatten the pockets of a select few, while killing thousands of people. Not to mention, the next generation will carry the burden of sporting the cost of this immoral war, as most Presidents raise taxes during wartime, but not good ole Georgie, he gives tax breaks to his fat-cat, big-spending buddies.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
It may be the best way to get aid to them, but you have to realize that the aid would be less, both in quantity & quality.

So you say. And yet the vast bulk of aid to the poor comes from the government and not charities. Why is that, I wonder?

ILikeDubyah said:
The government would have to hire people & pay them government salaries to administrate and carry out aid functions, which means even more money would be coming out of our pockets to cover the cost. There goes the quantity. What if the fictional person you speak of has a job....suddenly they're receiving less in their paycheck to be able to pay for such aid, therefore keeping them DEPENDANT on government aid....Why would we do this????

Are you suggesting that people are forced into poverty and welfare because they pay too much taxes? This is ludicrous and absolutely untrue. Provide any sort of substantial numbers that back this up, and I will cede the entire argument to you.

ILikeDubyah said:
The people paid for doing the work involved are doing the work to get paid (most of them) which means they really don't care about what they're doing, they're just going to do enough work as to not get fired....and being that hey work for the government, they only have to do about an hours worth of work a day to keep their jobs...there goes the quality.

The solution here is to fix the system, not get rid of that. With that said, you are also grossly overexaggerating the problem.

ILikeDubyah said:
Charities on the other hand are around for the specific purpose of helping others, and the people that donate time to them are there only to be selfless & help. Most of these charities are non/little profit....what do you know, you have quality & quantity of care back...

And on what basis do you base your dubious belief that in increase in charity donations would make up for the loss in services if the government no longer helped the poor?
 
everyone got a tax break

and if you say that they saved more, no crap, they make more, and thus, are taxed more.
 
kal-el said:
Yea, the cost definetly isn't worth it at all. First off, how many billions of tax-payer dollars does it tally up to? And how many people died? What did we accomplish? O yea, that's right, a quagmire. This war did nothing but fatten the pockets of a select few, while killing thousands of people. Not to mention, the next generation will carry the burden of sporting the cost of this immoral war, as most Presidents raise taxes during wartime, but not good ole Georgie, he gives tax breaks to his fat-cat, big-spending buddies.

How is the cost not worth what we've accomplished? We've freed 2 nations from tyranny...one of the tyrants WE put into power...we at least owed the people of iraq their freedom after that. Second, having a secure & safe America isn't worth fighting for? Yes, Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US but who's to say it wouldn't have in the future? It's a pre-emptive war. How many people died? Americans? Far less than 10% of all serving...name another war where that's happened? Did you have a job at the time of the tax cut? Any working person who didn't owe the Government money got a check, and subsequent checks have been bigger, if you had been paying attention to your stubs. Yes, the people with more money got a bigger tax cut, but that's because they pay more taxes (in theory). As for saying it's an "immoral" war....how many times do I have to say this???? ALL WARS ARE IMMORAL!!!...however, some are necessary.
 
Kelzie said:
Are you suggesting that people are forced into poverty and welfare because they pay too much taxes? This is ludicrous and absolutely untrue. Provide any sort of substantial numbers that back this up, and I will cede the entire argument to you.


Analysis of the state data for 1992 yields the following estimates of the effects of an increase in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits by 1 percent of the average personal income in the state: the number of AFDC recipients would increase by about 3 percent; the number of people in poverty would increase by about 0.8 percent; the number of births to single mothers would increase by about 2.1 percent; the number of adults who are not employed would increase by about 0.5 percent; the number of abortions would increase by about 1.2 percent; and the violent crime rate would increase by about 1.1 percent. - from Cato.org

Choke on it.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
How is the cost not worth what we've accomplished? We've freed 2 nations from tyranny...one of the tyrants WE put into power...we at least owed the people of iraq their freedom after that. Second, having a secure & safe America isn't worth fighting for? Yes, Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US but who's to say it wouldn't have in the future? It's a pre-emptive war. How many people died? Americans? Far less than 10% of all serving...name another war where that's happened? Did you have a job at the time of the tax cut? Any working person who didn't owe the Government money got a check, and subsequent checks have been bigger, if you had been paying attention to your stubs. Yes, the people with more money got a bigger tax cut, but that's because they pay more taxes (in theory). As for saying it's an "immoral" war....how many times do I have to say this???? ALL WARS ARE IMMORAL!!!...however, some are necessary.

You wanna talk about accomplishments? 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, almost 2,000 dead US soliders. And what about the sanctions put in place after Gulf War 1, over 500,000 deaths, and 10,000 of them children. I think freeing 2 nations from tyranny pales in comparison to these numbers, and they keep swelling everyday. And besides, there were a handful of countries with worse regimes than Saddams, so why didn't we free them from tyranny? O, I remember, Iraq controls the second largest supply of oil. Could that be why?
 
ILikeDubyah said:
Yeah, because there's nothing fufilling about raising your children and seeing that they turn out to be good productive, respectful members of society.

Back on topic, I'll state it again. Pre-school is un necessary, and I'm glad my tax dollars are going to the defense of this country rather than into the programs listed on that website, that I don't & would never support

1. Raising your children is not a job, but rather it is a responsibility. Regardless of whether you work a 40 hour week, or are a stay at home parent, the responsibility and work involved is exactly the same.

2. I don’t want you to take this personally at all, but I don’t know of any other way to put it. The arguments you have presented thus far, if anything, make your position look worse to most reasonable people. If anything the broader exposure a child gets going to a quality day school like a good Montessori school would lay the foundation for a much more pragmatic, broader, and tolerant world view than yours which I think that most people would agree would be a desirable quality for an individual to possess. If ones parents are the only ones who have any formative influence on their young life, then its safe to say that individual will hold the same misconceptions, prejudices, and closed mindedness that their parents held. Otherwise, no progress in society.

3. In a free society like ours, the government is the arm of the people. If a single mother receives assistance with childcare or anything else for that matter, it is society that is giving her that assistance.

FDR, the greatest president we have ever had (he was even Reagan’s childhood hero), had a lot of incites into the principles that our great nation is based in. I think the following three apply best to this thread:

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."

"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."

Oh, and one more that our current president could certainly learn from:

"It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."
 
ILikeDubyah said:
Analysis of the state data for 1992 yields the following estimates of the effects of an increase in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits by 1 percent of the average personal income in the state: the number of AFDC recipients would increase by about 3 percent; the number of people in poverty would increase by about 0.8 percent; the number of births to single mothers would increase by about 2.1 percent; the number of adults who are not employed would increase by about 0.5 percent; the number of abortions would increase by about 1.2 percent; and the violent crime rate would increase by about 1.1 percent. - from Cato.org

Choke on it.

And yet, for some reason, the actual numbers don't support the pro-small government website. How odd


Total social welfare expenditure/Unemployment Rate/Median Four Peson Income
1965 / 77,084 / 4ish

1970 / 145,979 / 4.9

1975 / 288,967 / 6.2ish / 15,848

1980 / 492,213 / 7.1 / 24,332

1985 / 731,840 / 7.2ish / 32,777

1990 / 1,048,951 / 5.6 / 41,151

1992 / 1,266,504 / 7.5 / 44,251

1993 / 1,366,743 / 6.9 / 45,161

1994 / 1,435,714 / 6.1 / 47,012

1995 / 1,505,136 / 5.6 / 49,687

Now if you'll notice, the total social welfare expenditure seems to have no affect on unemployment rate. And the average household income seems to be going up, despite the huge amount of extra taxes placed on them. How can this be reconciled with your data? Oh yeah, it can't.

Social welfare expen. is in millions
 
Kelzie said:
And yet, for some reason, the actual numbers don't support the pro-small government website. How odd


Total social welfare expenditure/Unemployment Rate/Median Four Peson Income
1965 / 77,084 / 4ish

1970 / 145,979 / 4.9

1975 / 288,967 / 6.2ish / 15,848

1980 / 492,213 / 7.1 / 24,332

1985 / 731,840 / 7.2ish / 32,777

1990 / 1,048,951 / 5.6 / 41,151

1992 / 1,266,504 / 7.5 / 44,251

1993 / 1,366,743 / 6.9 / 45,161

1994 / 1,435,714 / 6.1 / 47,012

1995 / 1,505,136 / 5.6 / 49,687

Now if you'll notice, the total social welfare expenditure seems to have no affect on unemployment rate. And the average household income seems to be going up, despite the huge amount of extra taxes placed on them. How can this be reconciled with your data? Oh yeah, it can't.

Social welfare expen. is in millions


You leave out the fact that the US population had increased by up to 30% in the 25 years from 1973 to 1998, therefore lowering the PERCENTAGE of people on welfare, while the actual numbers of people on welfare continue to climb. If the population were to remain a constant number, I believe we would see that the unemployment rate would show rises due directly to welfare taxes/spending.
 
kal-el said:
You wanna talk about accomplishments? 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, almost 2,000 dead US soliders. And what about the sanctions put in place after Gulf War 1, over 500,000 deaths, and 10,000 of them children. I think freeing 2 nations from tyranny pales in comparison to these numbers, and they keep swelling everyday. And besides, there were a handful of countries with worse regimes than Saddams, so why didn't we free them from tyranny? O, I remember, Iraq controls the second largest supply of oil. Could that be why?

I'm sure if another (real) Republican gets into office, we will go after more "evil" regimes. Yes, I believe oil plays a major part in this war, however once it's over (and not right after it's over), I doubt we'll be paying 3 bucks a gallon anymore...think about the future. The dead Iraqi Civilians...are you speaking of the gassed kurds?....that was saddam, not us. 2000 dead soldiers....again, far less than 10 % of all soldiers serving....the only other US war with a casulty rate so LOW is gulf war 1. The deaths due to sanctions were not the fault of the US...all the regime would have had to do to stop the death is either step down or at least comply with our demands....after all, we did win that war.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
I'm sure if another (real) Republican gets into office, we will go after more "evil" regimes. Yes, I believe oil plays a major part in this war, however once it's over (and not right after it's over), I doubt we'll be paying 3 bucks a gallon anymore...think about the future. The dead Iraqi Civilians...are you speaking of the gassed kurds?....that was saddam, not us. 2000 dead soldiers....again, far less than 10 % of all soldiers serving....the only other US war with a casulty rate so LOW is gulf war 1. The deaths due to sanctions were not the fault of the US...all the regime would have had to do to stop the death is either step down or at least comply with our demands....after all, we did win that war.

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq is the second largest oil spigot period. I know the 2,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam, but then again We provided his arsenal, and we covered it up for Saddam, by blaming it on Iranian rebels. So what if the 2,000 number is less than 10% of all soliders serving? Does that make it right that they died for a ficticious reason?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
1.
FDR, the greatest president we have ever had (he was even Reagan’s childhood hero), had a lot of incites into the principles that our great nation is based in. I think the following three apply best to this thread:

Reagan's childhood hero....and then Reagan grew up. Greatest president ever....the man who had prior knowledgeof Pearl harbor and still allowed it to happen, got us into a war because his policy could not pull us out of the depression, and created the welfare state...all really great things!

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."

When "walking forward" leads to the moral decay & eventual collapse of society as we knew it...I believe I would rather stand in place, but stand in place 100 years ago.


And if socialization and multiculturalism are so important, and must be learned outside the home, and learning it outside the home is so much better, why is it that children today are so much more cruel to children that do not "fit in" or even look the same. If anything, they're being taught to despise everyone equally, and care only about themselves or the conscequences to themselves of the actions they carry out.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
SouthernDemocrat said:
1.
FDR, the greatest president we have ever had (he was even Reagan’s childhood hero), had a lot of incites into the principles that our great nation is based in. I think the following three apply best to this thread:

Reagan's childhood hero....and then Reagan grew up. Greatest president ever....the man who had prior knowledgeof Pearl harbor and still allowed it to happen, got us into a war because his policy could not pull us out of the depression, and created the welfare state...all really great things!

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."

When "walking forward" leads to the moral decay & eventual collapse of society as we knew it...I believe I would rather stand in place, but stand in place 100 years ago.


And if socialization and multiculturalism are so important, and must be learned outside the home, and learning it outside the home is so much better, why is it that children today are so much more cruel to children that do not "fit in" or even look the same. If anything, they're being taught to despise everyone equally, and care only about themselves or the conscequences to themselves of the actions they carry out.

He had no more knowledge of Pearl Harbor before it happened then Bush did of 9/11 before it happened. In both cases, its nothing but extreme partisan lies.

The reason the United States did not go communist during the Great Depression is FDR.

The reason you have electricity in rural areas is FDR.

The reason you don’t speak German today is FDR.

The man was the most popular president of all time, if we would have had less of a man as president then, the nation probably by any historians account would not have survived or at the very least, we would not be the greatest nation in the history of civilization like we are today.

Moreover, what world do you live in? Let’s just take your advice and return American society to the state it was in 100 years ago. Back to those moral days when:

- Lynchings were common place.
- Minorities could not vote.
- Child labor was the norm and children routinely worked in sweat shops.
- Seniors made up the largest demographic living in poverty.
- There was virtually no middle class at all.
- The KKK had 20 million members.
- Segregation was the norm throughout the south.
- There were no worker protections at all.
- Marijuana, heroin and morphine were all available over the counter at
corner drugstores
Wow what a wonderful world that a century worth of progressive and liberal policies have ruined for us. I am with you, lets go back to the good old days.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
ILikeDubyah said:
SouthernDemocrat said:
1.
FDR, the greatest president we have ever had (he was even Reagan’s childhood hero), had a lot of incites into the principles that our great nation is based in. I think the following three apply best to this thread:

Reagan's childhood hero....and then Reagan grew up. Greatest president ever....the man who had prior knowledgeof Pearl harbor and still allowed it to happen, got us into a war because his policy could not pull us out of the depression, and created the welfare state...all really great things!

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."

He had no more knowledge of Pearl Harbor before it happened then Bush did of 9/11 before it happened. In both cases, its nothing but extreme partisan lies.

The reason the United States did not go communist during the Great Depression is FDR.

The reason you have electricity in rural areas is FDR.

The reason you don’t speak German today is FDR.

The man was the most popular president of all time, if we would have had less of a man as president then, the nation probably by any historians account would not have survived or at the very least, we would not be the greatest nation in the history of civilization like we are today.

Moreover, what world do you live in? Let’s just take your advice and return American society to the state it was in 100 years ago. Back to those moral days when:

- Lynchings were common place.
- Minorities could not vote.
- Child labor was the norm and children routinely worked in sweat shops.
- Seniors made up the largest demographic living in poverty.
- There was virtually no middle class at all.
- The KKK had 20 million members.
- Segregation was the norm throughout the south.
- There were no worker protections at all.
- Marijuana, heroin and morphine were all available over the counter at
corner drugstores
Wow what a wonderful world that a century worth of progressive and liberal policies have ruined for us. I am with you, lets go back to the good old days.

First I'd like to say that debating FDR belongs in another post, but since we're on the subject, FDR found out Pearl harbor was going to happen somewhere around November 24th. He then decided to pull major defenses away from the hawaiian islands & bring them back to San Diego...There is no comparison between 9/11 & Pearl Harbor in that aspect.

How many steps away from communism did we come during the great depression? The only reason the New Deal & New Deal II weren't completely communist was because no one would go for it in the first place.

Electricity in rural areas would have gotten there eventually with expansion...you can say "electricity AT THE TIME was thanks to FDR."

and, I do speak German today....fluently.

Anyhow. I stand by my original statement. Minorities were able to vote as early as 1869. Lynchings may have been commonplace, but today it's been replaced by gang warfare, and drive-by shootings that kill innocent people. Seniors still make up a large portion of those living in poverty...300 a month from social security just doesn't cut it....way to go, Social Security act of 1935! As for bigotry & racism, they're still around...people just whatch what they say & how they act in public. The only difference now is that it's not all out in the open, how people feel about eachother....(A project I did in college) when asking 100 caucasian woman what they though of a picture of a woman walking down an urban street filled with male minorities at night....98 of the women said they felt "uneasy", "afraid", or "scared"....you can't tell me it doesn't still exist, and more than likely at the same rate it did 100 years ago.

None of the opposing posts have convinced me as to why things like pre-school should undoubtedly be paid for by the fed.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
SouthernDemocrat said:
ILikeDubyah said:
First I'd like to say that debating FDR belongs in another post, but since we're on the subject, FDR found out Pearl harbor was going to happen somewhere around November 24th. He then decided to pull major defenses away from the hawaiian islands & bring them back to San Diego...There is no comparison between 9/11 & Pearl Harbor in that aspect.

How many steps away from communism did we come during the great depression? The only reason the New Deal & New Deal II weren't completely communist was because no one would go for it in the first place.

Electricity in rural areas would have gotten there eventually with expansion...you can say "electricity AT THE TIME was thanks to FDR."

and, I do speak German today....fluently.

Anyhow. I stand by my original statement. Minorities were able to vote as early as 1869. Lynchings may have been commonplace, but today it's been replaced by gang warfare, and drive-by shootings that kill innocent people. Seniors still make up a large portion of those living in poverty...300 a month from social security just doesn't cut it....way to go, Social Security act of 1935! As for bigotry & racism, they're still around...people just whatch what they say & how they act in public. The only difference now is that it's not all out in the open, how people feel about eachother....(A project I did in college) when asking 100 caucasian woman what they though of a picture of a woman walking down an urban street filled with male minorities at night....98 of the women said they felt "uneasy", "afraid", or "scared"....you can't tell me it doesn't still exist, and more than likely at the same rate it did 100 years ago.

None of the opposing posts have convinced me as to why things like pre-school should undoubtedly be paid for by the fed.

1. Due to poll taxes and other measures meant to keep minorities from voting, it wasn’t until the Johnson Administration that African American’s right to vote was actually protected and enforced. Moreover, 100 years ago, Women could not even vote.

2. Prior to the New Deal and Social Security, seniors made up the largest demographic living in poverty. Today, seniors are the wealthiest demographic. Oh, and do you know when the poverty rates actually dropped here in America? Answer: During the New Deal, the Great Society, and during the Clinton Administration. Since Bush took office the poverty rate has consistently risen. Way to go “Compassionate Conservatism”

3. Of course bigotry and racism is still around. However, American society for the last 100 years has consistently become more socially liberal and tolerant. There is far less racism and bigotry today than there was 100 years ago, or 30 years ago for that matter. Hell, a little more than 30 years ago, a lot of states didn’t even recognize interracial marriage.

4. Gang violence is nothing new. In fact, violent crime rates today are lower than they were at times during the 1800s.


The problem with the radical right is that they idealize a time and culture that never existed. They talk about how immoral America is today compared to the past. I mean come on, we have a lot of premarital sex today and sex certainly sells, but we used to horsewhip slaves, work young children 7 days a week in deplorable conditions in sweat shops, prostitution and pornography was more common in the civil war era than even today, women were treated as second class citizens, minorities couldn’t even use the same restroom as whites and could be lynched if they even so much as glanced at a white woman, gays were imprisoned, there were no environmental protections and entire species were hunted and or driven to extinction, poverty rates were at third world levels, venereal diseases were rampant… I can go on and on, but on balance we are a more moral, just, and tolerant society today than we have ever been in the history of man. Sure we have our problems, but they pale in comparison to the societal problems of the past.

Moreover, as I stated earlier, I don’t think that everyone ought to get their day care paid for, but I do think it’s a necessity for working families that are having a hard time getting by or many single parents.

The median income of family households where both parents are typically employed is: $53,991

The median income for family households with only one female parent present is: $29,307

Of course by median, that means that half of American house holds earn less than those figures.

The nationwide median single family home price is: $208,500

Now assuming a typical family where both parents worked that earned the typical median income of $53,991 a year wanted to purchase a home. Now say they found a modest home for less than the national median home priced at $190,000 and since it’s their first home, they put 5% down on it so they borrow $180,500.

So with taxes and insurance, their payment is approximately $1282.00 a month.

After taxes, assuming they have 2 kids, their monthly take home income is about $3200 dollars a month.

So $3200 a month
Minus House payment at $1282 a month leaves $1918
Minus Typical Car payment for 2 modest cars and insurance at $750 a month leaves $1168
Minus Typical Utilities assuming they try to conserve at $300 a month leaves $868
Minus Gas and maintenance on the cars if they try to conserve at $150 a month leaves $718
Minus Insurance payments for what their work doesn’t cover for their kids at (if they are getting a deal) $150 a month leaves
$568
Minus Food if they are also frugal at 500 a month leaves
$68

So at this point, that typical American family has 68 dollars left a month. Now, of course I haven’t even taken into account clothing, money for emergencies or home repairs, money for school supplies or the seemingly thousands of other expenses that families incur.

So by your reasoning, if that family were to do the right thing, they would cut their income nearly in half and the mother would stay at home to raise the kids.
.
 
Last edited:
You just proved the point I was trying to make at the beginning of this thread, and that is:
You do have enough money to go around with one income as long as you're working above minimum wage.

You do not HAVE to own a house. Before I got one I lived in a NICE 3 bedroom apartment for about $850 a month. This saves you $300 a month.

You do not HAVE to have 2 cars. and even if you do, youdo not HAVE to HAVE Car payments! This saves about 500 a month, assuming your car payments would only be 250 to begin with.

If you live in an apartment, usually utilities are included, less water, which is worked into the rent...saves you 300

I'll stop there. By not keeping up with the Joneses, and not living beyond the means earned, I just saved $1,100 dollars....oh wait, let me correct myself, I just saved $1,168. A month. Wow, that's 14,000 a year that can be put towards expenses that you "didn't include".... So, yes, I am saying to cut your income in half....Ya know inflation??? Why is it that starbucks can charge you 6 dollars for a cup of coffee, or Ford can charge you 30,000 for a piece of crap that'll die before you're done making payments on it? Because you have the money & you're willing to pay it. How did you get so much money? 2 incomes perhaps?
 
Going back to the cost of the war, the Institute for Policy Studies has released a report on the cost of the war in Iraq. Here is a summary, here the full report



I. Costs to the United States
A. Human Costs to the U.S. and Allies
U.S. Military Deaths: Between the start of war on March 19, 2003 and August 22, 2005 2,060 coalition forces have been killed, including 1,866 U.S. military personnel.Over 14,065 U.S. troops have been wounded, 13,523 (96 percent) since May 1, 2003.

Contractor Deaths: There have been 255 civilian contractor deaths since the “end of major combat” on May 1, 2003, including 91 identified as Americans.

Journalist Deaths: Sixty-six international media workers have been killed in Iraq as of August 28, 2005. U.S. forces are responsible for at least eleven deaths

B. Security Costs
Terrorist Recruitment and Action: The State Department found that the number of “significant” international terrorist attacks in 2004 reached 655, three times the previous record of 175 in 2003. Terrorist incidents in Iraq also increased by a factor of nine—from 22 attacks in 2003 to 198 in 2004.

Overstretch of Military: Since 2001, the U.S. military has deployed more than 1 million troops for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with 341,000 or nearly a third, serving two or more overseas tours. In August 2005 Army recruitment remained at 11 percent behind its yearly goal.

Security Costs Due to Loss of First Responders: Roughly 48,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve are currently serving in Iraq—making up nearly 35 percent of the total U.S. forces there. Their deployment puts a particularly heavy burden on their home communities because many are “first responders,” including police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. For example, 44 percent of the country’s police forces have lost officers to Iraq.

Use of Private Military Contractors: The Department of Defense estimates that there are at least 60 private security providers with perhaps as many as 25,000 employees. Of the 44 incidents of abuse that have been documented at Abu Ghraib prison, 16 have been tied to private contractors. While numerous soldiers have been courtmartialed for their roles in the scandal, no contractor has been brought up on charges.

C. Economic Costs
The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved four spending bills for Iraq with funds totaling $204.4 billion and is in the process of approving a “bridge fund” for $45.3 billion to cover operations until another supplemental spending package can be passed, most likely slated for Spring 2006. Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.

Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: In August 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next ten years. According to current estimates, during that time the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion.

Economic Impact on Military Families: Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 210,000 of the National Guard’s 330,000 soldiers have been called up, with an average mobilization of 460 days. Government studies show that about half of all reservists and Guard members report a loss of income when they go on active duty—typically more than $4,000 a year. About 30,000 small business owners alone have been called to service and are especially likely to fall victim to the adverse economic effects of military deployment.

D. Social Costs
U.S. Budget and Social Programs: The Administration’s FY 2006 budget, which does not include any funding for the Iraq War, takes a hard line with domestic spending— slashing or eliminating more than 150 federal programs. The $204.4 billion appropriated thus far for the war in Iraq could have purchased any of the following desperately needed services in our country: 46,458,805 uninsured people receiving health care or 3,545,016 elementary school teachers or 27,093,473 Head Start places for children or 1,841,833 affordable housing units or 24,072 new elementary schools or 39,665,748 scholarships for university students or 3,204,265 port container inspectors.

Social Costs to the Military/Troop Morale: As of May 2005, stop-loss orders are affecting 14,082 soldiers—almost 10 percent of the entire forces serving in Iraq with no end date set for the use of these orders. Long deployments and high levels of soldier’s stress extend to family life. In 2004, 3,325 Army officer’s marriages ended in divorce—up 78 percent from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion and more than 3.5 times the number in 2000.
Costs to Veteran Health Care: The Veterans Affairs department projected that
23,553 veterans would return from Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005 and seek medical care. But in June 2005, the VA Secretary, Jim Nicholson, revised this number to 103,000. The miscalculation has led to a shortfall of $273 million in the VA budget for 2005 and may result in a loss of $2.6 billion in 2006.

Mental Health Costs: In July 2005 the Army’s surgeon general reported that 30 percent of U.S. troops have developed stress-related mental health problems three to four months after coming home from the Iraq War. Because about 1 million American troops have served so far in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan some experts predict that the number eventually requiring mental health treatment could exceed 100,000.
 
From the same report:


II. Costs to Iraq

A. Human Costs to Iraqis
Iraqi Civilian Deaths: As of August 22, 2005, between 23,589 and 26,705 civilians have been killed as a direct result of the U.S. invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq. But the actual death toll may be much higher.

Iraqi Civilians Wounded: The Project on Defense Alternatives estimates the number of wounded between 100,000 and 120,000.

Iraqi Police and Security Forces Killed: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count reports that 2,945 Iraqi military and police forces have been killed since the war started while other reports estimate up to 6,000 have been killed. Up until December 2004, the monthly death figure was 65 but in 2005 the average has been 155 and the death toll reached a high of 304 in July 2005.

B. Security Costs
Failure to Train Security Forces: In June 2004 the State Department reported that 145,317 Iraqi troops were trained but one year later, State Department reports only note an additional 35,000 security forces were added to the ranks. The readiness of these troops cannot be ascertained. A March 2005 GAO report noted that “the departments of State and Defense no longer report on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are equipped with their required weapons, vehicles, communications equipment, and body armor.”

Rise in the Resistance: Despite 40,000-50,000 deaths and arrests, the resistance continues to thrive. The number of resistance fighters in Iraq increased from 5,000 in November 2003 to “no more than 20,000” in July 2005 and Iraq’s national intelligence service director estimates there are more than 200,000 sympathizers. Resistance attacks have risen 23 percent in the last four months. The rise in suicide attacks has skyrocketed. In 2003 there were 20, in 2004 there were 48 and in the first five months of 2005 there have been more than 50.

Rise in Crime: Baghdad’s central morgue counted 8,035 deaths by unnatural causes in 2004, up from 6,012 in 2003 and 1,800 before the war in 2002. 2005 is turning out to be even deadlier with the Baghdad morgue reporting 1,100 in July 2005.

C. Economic Costs
Unemployment: Unemployment figures today range from 20 percent to 60 percent. By comparison, during the Great Depression, U.S. unemployment peaked at 25 percent. Up to 60 percent of Iraqis depend on food handouts and the average income has dropped from $3,000 in the 1980s to $800 in 2004.

Corporate War Profiteering: Most of Iraq’s reconstruction has been contracted out to U.S. companies, rather than experienced Iraqi firms. U.S. auditors and the media have documented numerous cases of fraud, waste, and incompetence. The most egregious problems are attributed to Halliburton which has been awarded more than $10 billion in contracts. Pentagon auditors found that Halliburton failed to account adequately for $1.8 billion in charges for feeding and housing troops.

Iraq’s Oil Economy: Iraq’s oil production remains stalled at levels lower than before the U.S. invasion. In 2003, Iraq’s oil production dropped to 1.33 million barrels per day, down from 2.04 million one year earlier. In July 2005, oil production remained below pre-war levels. Iraq continues to import half its gasoline and thousands of tons of heating fuel, cooking gas and other refined products.

D. Social Costs
Electricity: By late July 2004, Iraq exceeded its pre-war electricity levels, providing nearly 5,000 megawatts of electricity across the country but since that date, levels have failed to improve; the average production in July 2005 was 4,446 megawatts

Health: A joint Iraqi-United Nations report released in May 2005 found that “the estimated number of persons living with a chronic health problem directly caused by war is 223,000 ... in the ongoing war, more children, elderly, and women have been disabled than in previous wars.”

Environment: During the war, water and sewage systems were destroyed, thousands of bombs were dropped leaving unexploded ordnance (UXO) strewn across the country, and the fragile desert ecosystem was damaged by tanks and U.S. temporary military outposts. Post-war looting further contributed to the damage. Three thousand nuclear compound storage barrels were looted and 5,000 barrels of chemicals were spilt, burned, or stolen. It is estimated that more than 12 million mines and UXO units are still present.

E. Human Rights Costs
Despite problems at U.S. detention centers, the use of arbitrary arrests continues. The average prisoner level in June 2005 was 10,783, up from 7,837 at the time of the January 2005 elections, and double that of the June 2004 level of 5,335. The U.S. is expanding three existing facilities and opening a fourth, at a cost of $50 million with the goal of being able to detain 16,000 long-term prisoners. Illustrating the problems caused by widespread sweeps of arrests without cause, review processes indicate that six out of every 10 Iraqis arrested are released without charges.

F. Sovereignty Costs
Economic and Political Sovereignty: Despite the January elections, the country has severely limited political and economic independence. The transitional government has limited ability to reverse the 100 orders by former CPA head Paul Bremerthat, among other things, allow for the privatization of Iraq’s state-owned enterprisesand prohibit preferences for domestic firms in bidding on reconstruction work.

Military Sovereignty: Currently, the U.S. operates out of approximately 106 locations across the country. In May 2005, plans for concentrating U.S. troops into four massive bases positioned geographically in the North, South, East and West were reported and the most recent spending bill in Congress for the Iraq War contained $236 million for building permanent facilities.
 
III. Costs to the World

A. Human Costs
While Americans make up the vast majority of military and contractor personnel in Iraq, other U.S.-allied “coalition” troops from the U.K., Italy, Poland and other countries have suffered 194 war casualties in Iraq. The focus on Iraq has diverted international resources and attention away from humanitarian crises such as in Sudan.

B. Disabling International Law
The unilateral U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq violated the United Nations
Charter, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to seize any opportunity to respond militarily to claimed threats, whether real or contrived, that must be “preempted.” The U.S. military has also violated the Geneva Convention, making it more likely that in the future, other nations will ignore these protections in their treatment of civilian populations and detainees.

C. Undermining the United Nations
The efforts of the Bush administration to gain UN acceptance of an Iraqi government that was not elected but rather installed by occupying forces undermines the entire notion of national sovereignty as the basis for the UN Charter.

D. Enforcing Coalitions
Faced with opposition in the UN Security Council, the U.S. government attempted to create the illusion of multilateral support for the war by pressuring other governments to join a so-called “Coalition of the Willing.” This not only circumvented UN authority, but also undermined democracy in many coalition countries, where public opposition to the war was as high as 90 percent. As of the middle of July 2005, only 26 countries of the original 45 members of the “Coalition of the Willing” had even token forces in Iraq, in addition to the United States.

E. Costs to the Global Economy
The $204.4 billion spent by the U.S. government on the war could have cut world hunger in half and covered HIV/AIDS medicine, childhood immunization and clean water and sanitation needs of the developing world for almost three years.

F. Undermining Global Security and Disarmament
The U.S.-led war and occupation have galvanized international terrorist organizations, placing people not only in Iraq but around the world at greater risk of attack. Global Increase in Military Spending: In 2002 world military spending was $795 billion. With the skyrocketing costs of the war in Iraq, worldwide military spending soared to an estimated $956 billion in 2003 and in 2004, the figure spiked again to $1.035 trillion.

G. Global Environmental Costs
U.S.-fired depleted uranium weapons have contributed to pollution of Iraq’s land and water, with inevitable spillover effects in other countries. The heavily polluted Tigris River, for example, flows through Iraq, Iran and Kuwait.
H. Human Rights The Justice Department memo assuring the White House that torture was legal stands in stark violation of the International Convention Against Torture (of which the United States is a signatory). This, combined with the widely publicized mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military and intelligence officials, gave new license for torture and mistreatment by governments around the world.
 
Originally posted by vandree:
B. Disabling International Law
The unilateral U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq violated the United Nations
Charter, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to seize any opportunity to respond militarily to claimed threats, whether real or contrived, that must be “preempted.” The U.S. military has also violated the Geneva Convention, making it more likely that in the future, other nations will ignore these protections in their treatment of civilian populations and detainees.
vandree, your outta control! But keep it up. These are very, very good posts. Thank you.
 
Originally posted by vandree
B. Disabling International Law
The unilateral U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq violated the United Nations
Charter, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to seize any opportunity to respond militarily to claimed threats, whether real or contrived, that must be “preempted.” The U.S. military has also violated the Geneva Convention, making it more likely that in the future, other nations will ignore these protections in their treatment of civilian populations and detainees.

Correct, it shows by the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo that the US never intended to follow the convention. And we consider ourselves "above" the rest of the world, so we must set an example. What kind of example are we showing? Limbaugh refers to the torture and abuses as "fraternity hijinks, or their just blowing off steam". What a jackass! If he is so strong in his beliefs, and such a pro-war nut, why dosen't he join up, since he's such a great patriot? O yea, he's too fat, he won't pass a physical fitness test.
 
Back
Top Bottom