[Roy Fokker]

Congressman Charlie Rangel recently unveiled a tax plan that Republicans estimate would raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Democrats questioned the math.

Now, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have released a report on the total costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including "hidden costs" such as interest on the money we're borrowing, and long-term healthcare for vets. The bill comes to $3.5 trillion. Republicans are, of course, questioning the math on this item.

One thing taxpayers know is taxing and spending is expensive, and government cost estimates tend to be on the conservative side relative to the actual bills. However extracted and spent, $3.5 trillion is an unimaginable extra burden on our economy.

If $3.5 trillion is the true cost of these military adventures, $11,500 is the amount every man, woman and child in this country pays. So, a family of four would pay $46,000 just for this war. This is an especially painful number to me, as the median household income of my constituency in Texas is just $43,000 a year. In other words, war has cost more than an entire year’s worth of income from each middle class Texas family.

What about the impact of these costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? $46,000 would cover 90% of the tuition costs to attend a four-year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. Obviously, it would far outpace the cost of a community college degree, so vital to so many in the workforce.

Link to full article

cheers,

[pickledpepperRN]

I doubt that most people excited about Dr. Ron Oaul (or Dennis Kucinich) will convince enough voter for their ideas to have a chance in the near future.

I'll repeat the obvious that borrow and spend is not better than tax and spend.
Dr. Paul is correct.

[Roy Fokker]

Hi Spacenurse,

Originally Posted by spacenurse

I doubt that most people excited about Dr. Ron Oaul (or Dennis Kucinich) will convince enough voter for their ideas to have a chance in the near future.

I'll repeat the obvious that borrow and spend is not better than tax and spend.
Dr. Paul is correct.

(following isn't addressed to you in particular)
"Dr. Paul is correct but he'll never convince anyone".

If everyone believed as such - of course he won't "convince" anyone!

Why are we so concerned about what so-and-so candidate will "be able to achieve" ?? Are we so engrossed in picking the "winner" that we forget "principle" and "honesty" in the bargain? Haven't we all complained about "dishonest politicians" before?

If so, when someone like Dr. Paul comes along and we chose to rather dismiss him as a "kook" rather than look at his record and hear what he has to say - what does that speak of our "democracy" and what does that speak of "us"?

Dr. Paul has more money and more straw poll victories than John McCain and Mike Huckabee - the so called "mainstream candidates" according to the media.
Dr. Paul has more contributions coming from the military than others.

Dr. Paul wants to end the War and other foreign entanglements (come home from Iraq, Korea and Europe for example), give options to young people to get out of government entitlement programs (if they want to) while taking care of those who are already entitled to government programs (such as SS and Medicare - paid for with the money saved from foreign policy) while also cutting the debt and deficit.


Any other candidate comes to mind who even remotely speaks of sustainable policy? Economic policy?

Or does every one think that we can just keep financing our debt by printing money and borrowing from China and Japan like there is no tomorrow?


cheers,

PS: If it does appear that I'm "testy" in my post - it's because I'm discussing my future here. All this talk of "debt" and "numbers" - well ... it's something I will have to face in my future. Forgive me for being worried about it...