COL Gene COL Gene

New Iraq Policy

▼

New Iraq Policy

from JoeUser Forums

Below is my advice of what we should do in Iraq:


1. Shift 50,000 troops to Afghanistan and keep the balance in Iraq.

2. Reassign remaining U.S. military in Iraq to perform the following missions:

A.Secure the border of Iraq and help protect the infrastructure.
B.Destroy all foreign terrorist forces in western Iraq and prevent their operation in the future.
C.Provide logistical and air support for Iraqi military forces.

3.Turn over ALL combat operations against Sunni/Shiite areas to Iraqi Forces.

4.Increase the training of Iraqi military and police forces.


If the Iraqi Government and military ends the sectarian violence and provides the political compromises to end the violence, we would continue the four missions above. If the Iraqi’s fail to establish security and come to the political compromises within the next 12 months, we REMOVE ALL U.S. Forces from Iraq!
politics
15,276 views 55 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
You refuse to address the question of the REASON Bush gave for his tax cuts-- To return a projected Surplus that DID NOT EXIST!


As to the subject of this Blog I have not been shown ONE reason why what I have suggested as a NEW Policy in Iraq is not a policy that we should try!


The "reason" was "never" the issue. And I didn't cite anything, ID did! So then you're trying to say the census bureau is wrong in it's information? Your original statement said NOTHING about why the tax cuts.

Thanks to Bush and his policies the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, the middle income workers are about the same
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Silence is consent.


That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say, Col. And you've said some doozies.

Using your logic, then your lack of articles about the Aryan Nations must mean you agree with them, huh?

Actually, your strategy makes sense. Your incredibly irrational leap of "logic" on the other hand, leaves much to be desired.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler

CBO has released data that shows that the top 10% are the only economic group that is better off during the past 6 years. The Poor are much worse off because their wages have been static and they must pay the higher costs that we all must pay. The census Bureau Data showed that AFTER INFLATION there has been NO real wage increase during the past 6 years.

Thus "the rich are richer” Just as I said. The "the poor are poorer" and the "the middle income workers are about the same ". Just like I said!!!!!!!

Just one of many articles that show where the Bush Tax Cuts are going:




By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

Skip to next paragraph The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

The study offers ammunition to supporters and opponents of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, which are all but certain to touch off a battle between the president and the Democrats who just took control of Congress.

Democratic leaders have taken pains to avoid an immediate fight over the tax cuts, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. But Democrats are looking for ways to increase revenue well before then, in part because they want to spend more on education and energy without increasing the deficit.

Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households

Here is another article:

Big Gain for Rich Seen in Tax Cuts for Investments
E-MailPrint Single Page Reprints Save

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: April 5, 2006

Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia

Graphic: Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts on Investment Income

Graphic: Where the Dividends Live

Interactive Graphic: Dividends in Your County
Related
A Terrain That Peaks at $33,392 and Bottoms at $21 (April 5, 2006) Correction Appended


The first data to document the effect of President Bush's tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was far more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of Mr. Bush's two previous tax cuts: on wages and other noninvestment income.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler

CBO has released data that shows that the top 10% are the only economic group that is better off during the past 6 years. The Poor are much worse off because their wages have been static and they must pay the higher costs that we all must pay. The census Bureau Data showed that AFTER INFLATION there has been NO real wage increase during the past 6 years.


So then you "ARE" saying that the census bureau does NOT know what it's talking about! Once again when confronted with FACTS that do not support your position, you either ignore them or brush them off and say they don't know what they are talking about. You're a moron!
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler


I looked at the data and you are correct as is the CENSUS BUREAU. HERE IS THE PROBLEM-- THAT DATA IS JUST INCOME WITHOUT CONSIDERING TAXES.

The data I have sighted shows income AFTER the impact of Federal Income Taxes. You can not spent the GROSS but the after tax income. When you take into effect the taxes, what I have said is correct. The top income groups got the BIG tax cuts. So their after tax income is MUCH higher. The Middle income tax payers got a much smaller cut and there AFTER tax income has not increased any more then inflation. The poor received NO tax cuts and their income has been in general static. That means they did not get any benefit from the tax cuts and must also pay the higher costs for food, energy, insurance, clothing etc. that means their after tax and after inflation situation is worse.

Thus AFTER tax and after INFLATION, WHAT WE ALL HAVE TO PAY OUR BILLS WITH, THE WEALTHY HAVE MORE, THE MIDDLE INCOME ABOUT THE SAME AND THE POOR LESS!

The Bush tax Cuts were very cleverly designed. In 2001 MOST of the tax cuts went to middle income taxpayers. The total was in the $45Billion range. By 2005 the total was approaching $300 Billion and the middle income taxpayers were getting about $60 Billion of the $300 Billion. In other words, starting in 2002, the tax cuts to the upper income groups skyrocketed and the cuts to the middle income taxpayers, after inflation and population growth remained, are about the same. The poor received the same benefit NOTHING. Thus what I said after considering the impact of the Bush tax cuts is correct. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle income is about the same.