Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Ok, let me see if I can follow the logic thus far:

1) I didn't really get a tax cut, even though I have significantly more money in my pocket.

2) The tax cut I didn't get is bankrupting my childrens' future. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

3) I would have gotten a bigger tax cut than the one I didn't really get if it had been a payroll tax cut, and it wouldn't bankrupt my childrens' future. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

4) The Mad Hatter is giving a tea party and I'm late, I'm late....

Mind you, I have nothing against a payroll tax cut. My head is just spinning amidst all of the contradictory statements.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Just to get this thread away from US taxes for a bit :

In another thread, Baron Munchausen posted a link to Orson Scott Card's website (www.ornery.org). Compulsive reader that I am, I started going through most of his essays, until I hit the following passage :

"I was a Mormon missionary once. In Brazil, in the great city of Sao Paulo and some of the smaller cities in the surrounding countryside. I got a lot of hate Messages, too -- shouted from passing cars and buses, or muttered as I was shoved by passersby.

Funny thing was, they didn't hate me because I was a Mormon missionary.

They hated me because I was an American.

They called me "CIA." (Apparently they thought America would send its spies two by two through suburban neighborhoods wearing white shirts and ties.)

Isn't it ironic that in foreign countries, Mormon missionaries often have to bear personally the hatred that American foreign policy has provoked, while in the United States, the same Mormon missionaries get the identical hatred from Americans whose religious sensibilities are offended."

I live in the exact region OSC mentions, and American Mormon missionaries are a common sight around here. There is a time difference, though - he was probably here in the 70s. At the time, Brazil was under military rule and there were many who believed that regime had been 'set up' with American help. The feelings he describes still exist, although perhaps not as intense; I don't think the missionaries today are harassed as much as he was back then.

So what am I trying to say ? I'm not sure myself. Maybe I'm just trying to explain why everyone down here (and probably throughout Latin America) is against the war in Iraq.

[ September 18, 2003, 15:43: Message edited by: Erax ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh here we go again, let's blame the other wing of the Corporate Party for the behavior of ALL OF THEM. NAFTA was negotiated by the Reagan-Bush dynasty, and Clinton was trying to prove he was a 'New Democrat' who was friendly to business by supporting ratification. Same thing with the opening for Chinese goods into our markets. Republicans wanted it, Clinton went along to prove he was a 'moderate' and not an anti-business 'liberal' Democrat who does evil things like protect the general public. It's not the 'Democrats' or the 'Republicans', it's the POLITICIANS who are betraying us all.

[ September 18, 2003, 18:18: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

AK here's another explanation

The top 20% pay mostly income tax to the govt. The rest of us pay mostly payroll tax. (It sounds from your description that your with the rest of us.)

The tax cut that passed only dealt with income tax.

An analogy would go like this:

a. a room with 100 people

b. 20 people pay $1000 to the govt in mostly income tax.

c. 80 people pay $1000 to govt mostly in payroll tax.

d After the income tax cut the top 20 now pays $900 to the govt. mostly in income tax. The other 80 (people like you AK) now pay $990 to the govt. mostly in payroll tax. Sure those 80 got a tax cut BUT . . .

The reason it seems like the top 20 pay so much more is that some people only look at income tax and ignore payroll tax.

To answer your questions ALL those tax cuts will probably bankrupt the govt. Since there was going to be a tax cut then it should have been spread more. And yes you would have gotten a bigger share of the tax cut under a different plan.

[ September 18, 2003, 18:21: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<I ran across this a while back>

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.
The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this.

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh $7;
the eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner decided to give them a break.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to educe the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six -- the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important.

They were $52 short!

And that, journalists and college professors, is how the tax system works.

[ September 18, 2003, 19:22: Message edited by: Narrew ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Cute story, but I don't even know where to begin pointing out inacuracies in the analogy.

First off, the story only deals with a progressive income tax. Sales tax, excise taxes (e.g. gasoline taxes), property taxes, payroll taxes, etc. are all completely ignored and yet extremely important to the tax system. Telling only part of the story is not a good way to understand the tax system.

So I feel that when discussing taxes we should discuss the total effect of all taxes on an indivual. Presumably Narrew disagrees, discussing as he does only the progressive income tax in his story. I see no reason why one should not include the effect of these other taxes, considering that they are just as much a part of the tax system as the income taxes. Please Narrew, make a case for why we should only be focusing on income tax here.

Another important question is how should we measure a fair amount of taxes to be paid (putting aside the important question of how much taxes should be paid to a later date, only anarchists believe that NO taxes whatsoever should be paid to the state). There are two basic approaches here, an absolute measure, promoted by Rush Limbaugh and others, which decides to measure the absolute amount of dollars that someone gives to the tax system and a relative measure which measures the percentage of a persons income which they pay in taxes.

Say we have two people, one who makes $200 a year and one who makes $20,000 a year. Now the $200 a year person pays $20 in taxes while the $20,000 a year person pays $2,000 a year in taxes. Now Rush Limbaugh comes along and screams, "holy cow, this is totally unfair, let me show you a graph, the richest person is paying 90.9% of the total taxes!!!! My god that is so wrong, rich people are over taxed and should definately be paying less in taxes." This is very very wrong analysis. Both person A and person B were paying 10% of their income in taxes, which is a perfectly reasonable starting point and quite fair. But if you listened to Rush you would never hear about this. That is why whenever you hear someone talking about abo****e tax numbers in terms of whoever pays absolute amounts (like Rush's little pie graph earlier) little bells should be going off in your head saying, "distortion alert, distortion alert, someone is probably trying to trick me, I should be extra careful here." Talking about absolute numbers in tax terms is almost never a fair thing to do and anyone who willfully does it after being shown quite clearly that this is a bad thing to do is either an ignoramus and very bad at math, or else deliberately deceptive. In Rush's case I know where I am putting my money, but you can decide for yourself.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

That Last post was something I came across a while back when I heard the same old crying "the rich always gets the breaks".

Teal...When I read "progressive tax" all I can see is punitive or punishment, why should someone that earns more be made to pay incrementally MORE, in my ideal world, everyone above a specific amount (ie to not make the lowest earners carry the brunt, because of all the "other taxes" out there) would pay 10%. You see in my universe, math is simple, the sum of 10% of $500k is MORE than the sum of 10% of $50k. Of course all deductions would need to be eliminated. As far as the national sales tax, there would be many items not taxed, such as raw/non-processed foods but if you want to go out to a restaurant, then your going to pay a tax, no one makes you go out and eat. When a person with low income goes out to buy a car, they do not shop at the Hummer dealership. I think we need to get rid of all these nuisance taxes, I think as it is now all those local and state taxes you bring up (which I agree hurts the lower class) only makes it hard for anyone to get above the tide and make a positive income.

As I said before, I am not naive enough to think things will change, but I have a hard time not thinking a TOTAL tax change would not be for the better, but to get all the local/county/state/nation to make the changes would be near impossible.

When people complain about tax breaks bankrupting our future, why do they not think instead the bloated and inefficient programs will bankrupt our nation. I do not want to live in a socialist country (nothing personal my friends that live in such countries), but these programs are there, will always be there, but by god I want the money to go to the people that need it, not gobbled up because of an inefficient bureaucracy that could care less where the money is going. Our politicians when they leave office get paid a yearly salary and insurance benefits, you tell me what incentive do they have to make SS and Medicare viable, they will never use the service so they only have to pay lip service to the voting public.

As far as living in Washington, yep I thought California was a heavy tax state, but hell they tax the snot out of you here. Nice weather though. I had a house that wasn't fancy, I paid $145k for, but paid $200 per month for property tax, OMG is that sick or what? No wonder retirees have to sell their homes because they cant afford the sales tax.

Atrocities--Sorry you feel the way you do about Republicans, I can see where your feelings come from since that is all we hear from liberals and their attacks on people that only want the freedom to better themselves and not punished for success. I will say that the Democrats do not want their constituents to become educated and better themselves, because if they do, the will realize that all the rhetoric they have spewed is just that. So instead they ask "vote for us and we will get goodies for you from the government (which comes off the backs of them evil rich people)". But they never really come through, ohh they get government pork sent their way, but it doesn't really help the POOR, it just keeps the poor there, and I think the past 30-40 years prove it. And if anyone does better them selves, well they are evil and should be punished.

I will finish on this note, I am by no means rich (in American terms), the most I have ever made is around $45k (lots of over time), I got laid off after 9-11 and am going through retraining and will be finishing my schooling in the spring of next year. I hope to start my own business. But I remember a long time ago in my first real job, I was making $11/hr. and my supervisor overheard a conversation I was having with another co-worker. He asked me how could I be a conservative when I make so little money. I was floored by his question, I told him "What does the amount that I make have to do with fairness? I want to be able to better myself, and the amount that I am making now shouldn't make any difference".

Fairness. I do not think a progressive tax system is fair, it is punitive. Do I think it will change, no, not unless as I said above to Teal every level of taxes get changed so it will not be regressive as he said. I no what the socialists will say, it is only fair that the rich pay more since they have more, and my answer to that is who gives you the right to decide who should be punished more than someone else (yes, I contend that it is punishment). If I remember correctly, the IRS thinks you are rich if you make around $96k, that's a hell of allot of money true, but incrementally increasing their tax rate to make them "pay" more is not fair, why should the be punished because they make more. As long as there is class hatred and class envy, we will never focus on the real issues, which is, how can we be more efficient with the money we are spending now.

ACK, another tomb http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I am going to stop posting, since I know that most of use believe what we do, and it will be near impossiable to change our minds.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Teal:
The problem with that is the poor and rich person do not in reality pay the same percent of their own income in taxes. You have them both paying 10% of their income, which is in no way at all like reality. It is the differences in percent taxed that most people complain about, not the overall percentage of tax revenues... (even that evil Rush Limbaugh...)

[ September 18, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

So what if the lower income person pays a greater percentage of their income in taxes? That is simple economics. The more money you have to begin with, the more you have left over after you pay for all those things which are the neccesities of life, food, shelter, clothing.

If I buy a new shirt for 20 dollars, that is a much greater percentage of my total monthly income then if Bill Gates buys the same shirt? So he should pay more for it and get nothing more out of it then I do? Just because he can? That's not fair.

The payroll tax is not a X amount per person tax guys. It's may not be graduated like income taxes, I am trying to find that out, but the more money you make the more you pay in payroll tax. And gas and other use taxes do constitute a greater percentage of total monthly income for a poor person then for a rich one, but so what? See above. Payroll tax and use taxes don't make things level. The poor person doesn't end up paying the same because of them. The rich person still pays a much greater share of the tax bill. And that's fine. Of course the rich person will pay a smaller percentage of their total income in taxes, but using the tax code as a method of income redistribution to change that is just wrong. Of course that's simply an ethical position I choose to take. Can't really debate it with those of you that feel it should be.

[ September 18, 2003, 20:52: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

**Please Narrew, make a case for why we should only be focusing on income tax here.**

Because when people say the tax cut that Bush passed supposedly benefited the rich, that tax break was on the INCOME tax side, which was across the board, so DUGH (not aimed at you Teal, it's the people that plays the class envy card), the rich are going to get a break since they pay proportionally more of the income tax bucket.

Its all politics and rhetoric, I just hate the blanket liberal mantra "Tax breaks only help the rich". What you say is true on all the "OTHER" tax's, but can you even imagine anyone attacking them? I don't think any politician on either side would care to tackle that. SS and Medicare taxes are split between you and your employer, now we could make the employer pay 100%, but that may look good, but it is still coming out of all our pockets, the employer will factor that in your wages and pass it along to the consumer (no matter how long that chain will be).

I agree with you that all them other tax's hurt, but I dont see anything that will change. Will we have another Boston Tea party? I don't know that answer. I still think that progressive tax rates are punishment, but as you say how can we even out things *shrug*.

I just thought about trying to lower property tax's here in Washington state, I don't see it happening.

Whats the answer? heck if I know, I think we are allready to far down the socialist slope to make changes.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Teal:

Fyron and Narrew obviously have never heard of social security tax because because base on both their Posts they don't even acknowledge that it exists.

Fyron:

Please don't accuse me of "slander" you probably do know what the social security tax is.

But again you provide half truths when you post that the rich pay way more to the govt than the poor. For whatever reason you don't include payroll tax (income tax by another name) as part of the equation and once you include that your assertion that the rich pay more turns out to be false.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually Geo the payroll tax is for the first 87K. So someone making $1 million dollars would pay payroll tax as if he made 87K. There are so many more people making less than 87k that more of that revenue comes from people making a lot less.

So when you talk about how much revenue comes into the govt all taxes it turns out the top 20% are now paying less - look it up. And please don't show just income tax it's all money that comes out of a paycheck.

[ September 18, 2003, 20:55: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Whatever. Discussing anything with you has always been a waste of time Rex. Have fun spouting off your garbage rhetoric.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So then you don't know what social security tax is?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

here is something else that I have thought of, I would look up all the numbers ect.. if I was running for office, hehe but I am not.

I we could wipe the slate clean on ALL taxes and start over. On the federal side, no deductions what so ever. Flat income tax on those above $30k individual $60k married, 10% on all income above those amounts. 10% on Capital Gains period (other than IRA/retirement), National Sales Tax on all manufactured items 2.5% (could have 2 weeks tax free for items under $2k for the start of school and X-mas) AND 5% tax on ALL import's (whether it is raw material or finished products), if it is across the board, perhaps we wouldn't violate trade laws.

I would like to see the revamping of business taxes, and incentives to increase 401-k participation of employees, maybe double the companies tax deduction for benefits that help the employees health/retirement.

Lets look at the prescription bill, employers will drop people off their plans and ask people to go the national plan to save money, but instead of a national plan, what if we gave the drug companies double tax breaks for supplying drugs to low income people. I know for a fact that if anyone needs medications and your low income, your doctor will send in a form to help the poor, or the doctor has enough "samples" to help someone, I know I have received some myself since I only have cobra.

I think there are many options than starting more government programs and taxing more and more.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So then you don't know what social security tax is?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Rex---Dude! I have been talking about SS, havent you read anything I have written? I said no one in their right mind will EVER lower SS tax.

The other thing that I have not brought up, that originally SS was in its own bag of money, but greedy politicians (mostly liberals wanting to SPEND more on goodies) moved it to the general fund, not Bush.

The other thing SS was to SUPLIMENT retirement, and someone making over $87k will not need that supplement, they would be foolish if they did. And though I am not SS age yet, someone that is rich is limited on their SS benefits paid to them either by taxing their income or lowering their pay out. So why the heck should someone KEEP paying into SS when it wont help them out, why not put it into an IRA or what ever and get a return on their money. And don't tell me you want to MAKE them pay more into a program that is inefficient.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I plan on it. It's a lot of figures to read over and it may take me a while. But I will post what I find.

Before I get into it too much we need to establish something up front. While I agree that it's not fair to ignore the payroll tax when looking at the total tax picture, I don't think it's accurate to add the entire payroll tax in when determining what share of the tax burden each of us shoulders. So we need to discuss this a bit if our debate will have any common ground.

I think we can all agree the ideal situation would be for each persons SSI/Medicare taxes to be used to pay for SSI/Medicare expenses of that person. However, realistically it can't. It's designed to be a social insurance plan where everybody pays in and everybody gets back out. The closest we could get is for each years payroll tax revenues to be used to pay that years SSI/Medicare expenses. It would be nice if there was no surplus or deficit, but that isn't realistic either. It would be ok if any surplus were saved to be used for future years deficits, (In a lock box maybe? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) but that doesn't happen either. Instead the surplus is converted bonds which the government uses to fund other programs. This is I believe the area that bothers you and leads you to calling the whole thing a tax.

So, I think if we are going to consider SSI/Medicare payments as taxes, we should break that up and call the portion going to pay SSI/Medicare expenses as "insurance premiums" and the portion that goes towards these other programs as the hidden "payroll tax".

If that seems reasonable to you I can look at the numbers and figure out what portion of the total tax revenue for each year is paid by which income demographic. Actually I will calculate it both ways, just for curiosity.

EDIT: Now mind you I don't think it will matter that much as far as I believe going in that the numbers will show the top 20% of wage earners pay a significant portion of the taxes whichever way I calculate it. But obviously it will change the degree somewhat.

[ September 18, 2003, 21:56: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

OK - When I looked at this Last, though, I just lumped it all together as percentage of revenues without deducting what actually goes into paying the insurance. With that said I concede that it should probably be taken out of the equation.

Yes if the payroll tax were not spent on non-entitlements then I might have a different opinion on Rush's argument that "the rich pay more".

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Narrew: If we could wash the slate clean and start the tax system all over again, then I would mostly agree with you. A *total* tax rate of X% flat across the board seems like a fair place to start a discussion, with perhaps a deduction (no tax on the first $X). Sadly, as you aknowledge, we can't start the tax game all over again from scratch (short of a violent revolution, which has its own horrible cost). So we are stuck with the tax system we have now. Given that we are stuck with the current tax system. Advocating a change from the progressive federal income tax seems like a bad idea to me. Since, as you acknowledge, none of the other taxes are going to change, the net effect of such advocacy (even with your admirable intentions) would be to make the total tax system regressive. I am very much interested in the practical side of things. Given that we prefer result X (a mostly flat total tax), what is the best way to accomplish that in the real world? I think that the answer has to be a slightly progressive federal income tax in order to balance out the regressive nature of all the other taxes. Also, I don't trust either party to be fiscally responsible if they hold all the power. Right now the Republicans hold the legislature, the executive, and, arguably, the judiciary as well. And they have shown that their idea of fiscal responsiblity is to *raise* spending and cut revenue. A Democratic legislature and a Democratic president would surely be bad as well in that they too would raise spending (on different things mind you) and would probably raise taxes to pay for it. Historically, a Democratic legislature and a Republican executive has also been quite bad with the compromise being balooning spending on both parties favorite projects. Which leaves us with a Democratic president and a republican legislature. Historically, this has been the most preferable option with something approaching a balanced budget and spending mostly under control. Given that both political parties are up to no good, and if given unchecked power they will abuse that power, the answer is to make sure that no one party ever gains controll. If it seems probable that Republicans will control the legislature, vote for a democratic president, and vice versa in the other case(it's easier to predict the legislature's composition in general given the power of incumbancy change happens slowly there). So rather than throw up our hands in defeat at the evil politicans we should try and use the built in checks and balances in the system to try and maximize the chances that the most reasonable thing will get done and to my mind that means making sure that the various factions have roughly equal political power.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

See Teal, we are not too far apart *family hug* though we both have different opinions, and hey that is the way things are here in the US and that's a good thing.

I want to take up your comment about our Politicians. One of the things I think our Founding Fathers intended was that "serving our country" would be a sacrifice, not a permanent pay check that our elected officials get after 1 term. If they did sacrifice their public (income and what ever) and would not get a lifetime paycheck after they left office, then perhaps they would "work for the common man". Especially if they were told, once you serve in office, you have to live with Medicare health when you retire (ohh I know, how can you make that happen, but it would be nice if they have to take the medicine that we take).

At one time, I thought that term limits would fix it, but I have changed my mind over the years. There are good people from both sides of the isle that DO care about the people (ohh we can disagree how best to serve the people, that's cool), but many career politicians are the bane of our Country's well being.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In a perfect world, everyone would pay for government services exactly what they got out of it. So, if I drive my car 100 miles/month on the county roads and someone else drives 1,000 miles/month on those same roads, I should pay 10 times as less in "county road tax" as the other person because I used the road ten times as less. Sadly, I know of no easy way to calculate this benefit and thus to pay a fair tax for my use of government services. Could you imagine the paperwork that would result from such a system: "let's see here, I drove 14 miles yesterday, that's $1.40 in road tax, and the police arrested a burgular who was going to break into my house tommorow so they have billed me $200 and the firedepartment was nice enough to stop that house across town from burning down and setting the whole city ablaze. They have billed me $0.77 which they calculated as the cost of my home times the percentage chance it would have burned down if they had not acted, etc. etc." (and yes, these examples were shown as being deliberatley impossible to calculate in the real world, how do you quantify the benefit that you recieved from the police department?)

So, given that calculating the exact benefit each individual gets from government services is imposible, we should try and arrange things so that whichever simple model we adopt get's closest to whatever that value actually is.

Geo has effectively argued that benefit is proportional to how much one *spends*. I.e. I get more out of government services the more I spend. I shall argue that benefit derived is more closely proportional to how much one *earns*. Or to put it another way: given the choice between a sales tax generating $X and a flat income tax generating $X (in a world with no other taxes, ha!), which one should we choose?

To answer this question, let's look at several government services and try and decide whether the benefit recieved from them scales more closely as a function of spending or of earning.

1) Roads: Here it seems likely that spending would scale more closely to benefit. One would buy more gasoline if they used the roads more, and the more goods one buys the more that they had to be trucked in from elsewhere and thus the more the roads were damaged due to your buying the good.

2) Police and fire protection: Once again it seems that the benefit scales as a function of spending, since the more expensive house you buy, the better the nieghborhood and the more likely it is to be that you will have excellent police and fire coverage.

But what a minute here. How do I put a value on the stability that functioning infrastructure brings to a society? The wealthier person only has a wealthy career because of this stability. Smack a New York City stock broker into downtown Kabul, Afghanistan (which lacks the devloped infrastructure of the west) and ask them to start earning a living and they will soon find themselves doing something other than stock brokering. Put a janitor in the same situation and it is much more likely they will be able to continue janitoring. In this case, we have to say that the stock broker got far more benefit from the government services provided by the U.S.A. because put him in a situation where those government services function poorly and his livelyhood is hurt drastically more than the janitors. In this case I think we have to say that benefit scales as a function of income, not necessarily spending. Much of whatever income you are making is really only possible because the society as a whole is quite stable and that is largely a function of a mostly good government providing roads, courts, police protection, national defense and even quite possibly help for someone who recently lost their job and would other wise have to turn to crime (gasp!, ok maybe not that Last one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

So which of these two viewpoints more closely resembles reality? I have to say that income scales more closely to benefit derived than spending does, although both are imperfect.

Also, we may decide as a society that people should not be taxed on necessities (i.e. food, clothing, shelter). This is because if we tax someone who can not quite provide for all their necessities then we are in effect taking the bread out of thier mouths. We may decide, as a society, that we would rather just tax people on "luxuries" instead. Now the question arises, what is a necessity and what is a luxury? Buying a $2 shirt from Goodwill is surely a necessity, how about a $10 shirt from the Gap, or a $100 shirt from a designer store? Obviously the $100 shirt is a luxury, yet if we have a blanket "no taxing clothing policy" then the person who buys it would be able to escape the luxury tax in part by buying luxurious "necessities". A better way to approach the problem would be to allow each person a set deduction of $X where $X was determined to be the necessity threshold (that amount of money necessary to provide for basic necessities). This would involve far less paperwork and interfering with the market than trying to figure out which kinds of shirts are luxuries and which are necessities.

One final argument against the sales tax, which, although short, is perhaps the most powerful of all. The world is becomming increasingly globalized and it is now quite easy to buy something from somewhere other than where you live. Typically when you buy something off the internet (for example) you do not pay sales tax. Some people seek to avoid sales taxes by using the internet for big ticket items. Thus a sales tax (even a national one which could be circumvented by ordering from Canada or Mexico) has a bad effect on the free market and will become increasingly more of a logistical hassle to collect and fairly distribute as time goes on.

Teal, who has used up his "arguing on the internet" time quota for the month and must now turn back to "doing productive things" time.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

So, how much of this is true?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

My Darn Good Resume Accomplishments as President
By George W. Bush, The White House, USA

I attacked and took over two countries.

I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.

I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by any president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.

I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history.

I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

I cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.)

I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.

I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more that any other president in US history.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of Congressional oversight that any presidential administration in US history.

I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

I withdrew from the International Criminal Court.

I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.

I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

I spent more money on polls and focus Groups than any president in US history.

I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.

I took the world's sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.

I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans that any other president in US history.

In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the civil war.

I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less that two years turned every single economic Category heading straight down, record unemployment being the most recent achievement.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas drug conviction has been erased and is not available).

I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.

I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

Any records of minutes from meeting I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

DO YOU WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH! THINK ABOUT IT. SEND THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Aaaw, why u got 2 h8?

[edit: done making serious Posts in this thread]

[ September 22, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

WarDad should that mass email list a few sources to bring a little creditability to it ??? Cause right now it looks like one of those pass it on emails that passes right to the delete bucket.

P.S. anyone see Letterman Last night. That bush speach was funny... "The left hand ( raises the right one ) knows what the right hand ( raises the left hand ) is doing."

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have got to love the dimmly informed and utterly clueless fools that blindly follow the democratic tune. Talk about role reversals, mistruths, and utter made up crap.

Clinton drove me away from the Democratic party, and dumb asses like the moron who made this email keep me away.

(My opinion is mine alone.)

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

OK people, forgive me if I sound a bit harsh, but as an inhabitant of 'the rest of the world', I would like to state my opinion. While I speak for no one other than myself, I believe there are many people out here - a whole lot many people - who would agree with me (I also got a little carried away towards the end, but that is honestly the way I feel).

The US had - and has - the power to make or break the UN, and this time, they chose to break it. While some people claim that this is the first step in a worldwide power grab, I feel that the problem is, in fact, the opposite.

America doesn't want to take the UN's place. You don't want to take on the role of world leader or even the lesser role of world mediator. As soon as all governments which threaten you have been removed or intimidated into submission, you will retreat back into your isolationism. And that is what makes me mad.

You see, in their day, the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence were as revolutionary as the Communist Manifesto. Your Founding Fathers believed their ideals applied to all people, everywhere. But from the late 80s onward you did not try to push the world towards democracy and away from oppression and corruption. Sure, you participated in flare-ups in several trouble spots around the world, but they weren't part of a concerted effort.

This is nothing less than tragic. After the fall of the Communisr Bloc, you had the power to create a world according to your own ideals (and believe me when I say that most of us out here think you do have that power) but did not act on it. That is why we do not trust you now. Those of us who hated you during the Cold War still hate you today, but they are a tiny minority. The rest of us - the ones who cheered along with you when the Berlin Wall came down - have been feeling cheated for quite some time now.

The good news is, you still have a way out. Your government says it wants to create a democracy in Iraq, which may serve as an example for the rest of the Middle East. That is exactly the kind of project we've been waiting to see all along. We wish you the best of luck with it, because it is not only your national safety which is at stake there, but also your credibility.

If, in your arrogance, you consider us - and our trust in you - irrelevant, if you believe you can achieve safety for yourselves solely through force and intimidation, you will face increasing opposition every step of the way. Your power, without wisdom, will fall of its own weight.

If, on the other hand, you have the courage to live up to your ideals and make an honest attempt to spread them to the rest of the world, we will stand behind you and help you sweep away everything that threatens you - terrorism, drugs, international crime - because they are also a threat to us. America, seize this opportunity now while you still have it, and take the place you deserve in History.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The speach, Read it !!!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe it is time to come up with some proof soon ?
Flinging unsupported accusations only works so many times.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You over estimate our abilities and our dedication.

Our trade deficits is huge. Our goverment and personnal debt load is huge. Our industrial base has been immitated, undercut, and exported. The "brain" positions and the service economy is also following.
We have many people who do not give hoot about American Ideals. Many immigrants came here for the almighty buck. Many natives do not understand how worse life can be elsewhere.
The only thing our mixed population can seem to agree on is taht "we all want a litte more".

I know career military men in the National Guard reserves. They complain about the lack of good clean men (er, persons) that can pass the drug tests. Many Guard positions go unfilled because of this. Many young men (er, persons)are discharge because of drugs and because they failed to complete counseling requirements.

Can we sell Justice and hold charades like the O.J. Simpson trial and Rodney King trial?

Can we sell democracy and flaunt election fraud?
The Bush election was not our first case of fraud.
How about LBJ, and Tammay Hall, etc...?

We are in no position to kick the worlds butt.
We are certainly in no position to grab the moral high ground.
We certainly are not evangilists of democracy and human rights.

We can not help the world alone.
Maybe France can lead you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amen, brother! Thanks for taking the time and effort to rebute that load of crap.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Wardad, you must take on this role because you are ahead of the rest of us. You could have reworked the UN to act as your front, giving you legitimacy while you supplied its backbone, but your current government has removed that option. So now there is no one else to do the job.

And believe me, someone has to do it, otherwise the power of drug, terrorism, corruption and organized crime networks will continue to grow unchecked until they become our de facto world government.

Someone has to rally the world around the moral high ground, and it can't be France or any of the other former colonial powers because they have a poor track record with the rest of the world. If America won't do it, someone will, but I have no idea who that someone might be.

All I know is that it won't be France. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe it is time to come up with some proof soon ?
Flinging unsupported accusations only works so many times.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well he did...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did he ?
The news over here must be heavily censored, cause I have missed any proof.
Please humour an old geezer and provide me with a link (other than his own statements)

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amen, brother! Thanks for taking the time and effort to rebute that load of crap.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I should have worded it kinder as it might have offended some people and for that I do sincerely apologize.

There is very little truth in that email, mostly mis-stated half truths and rumors created by hate mongers and trouble makers. The same people who do the same thing to every president. These people may or may not be politically affilated, but their line of crap is always the same.

Someone had to take the high ground in the fight against world terrorism. That will draw a lot of flack from those who both support terrorism, and those who want to make noise so they get their 15 minutes of fame.

Most Americans, and people around the world choose to be a silent majoratie that support what Bush and Blair have done. The new organizations want to sell papers and air time so they hype the anti-terrorism efforts and fuel the fires. We call them Anarchists. In the end most people are glad to see the Taliban and Sadaam gone.

Our Economy was heading down hill fast in late months of 97. In October 97 the Stock Market had a baby crash and from that point on, everything was head'n south. Bush walked into a bad economy made 10x worse by the events of 9-11. No president could have forseen this and no person should hold the president responsible for this.

Bush extended unemployment benifits for americans. It was Clinton who cut them because back when he did it made sense. The econmy was doing great and unemployed people often were back to work in a month.

I do worry about the national debt, but I confedance that smart people are doing what they feel they must in order to get the job done.

Time will tell the tale of all of this and trust me in a 100 years none of it will matter for all of us who are alive now will most like be dead then. So what does it matter?

[ September 25, 2003, 01:43: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I bet you meant Bush and Blair here. For some reason, when I saw "Clair", I first thought of Claire Short and did a double-take. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He had WMDs, that much is clear. That's all it said, really. Implications being what they are, you could call it baiting an untruth, but as long as that past-tense is in there...

As for Bush I taking out Saddam, it wasn't possible. We did not have a strong enough presence in the region to go it alone, and no one else was going to stick it out past Kuwait. Two years later would have worked, but U.S. was a different place by then.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I can do this all day http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
“and refused to account for them (WMDs) when confronted by the world” is not just baiting an untruth. Until proved, it’s nothing but slander. If it’s not proved, than it’s a blatant lie.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) We don't disagree that Hussein had at least at one point WMDs.

2) What would you say "accounting for them" might mean? I'd say that on balance he did refuse to properly account for them, since UN inspectors HAVE pointed out big holes in his accounts of what happened to known stocks of bio-chemical weapons (or materials to make such weapons) and Hussein DID push out the inspectors when they started looking too hard after Gulf War 1.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

OK, after reading the UN speech I must say that my opinion of GWB has just become more favorable. At worst, he recognizes that he cannot ignore the UN and world opinion indefinitely. At best, he truly intends to support all the humanitarian projects he mentioned.

I am especially interested in this part : <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's hope it happens that way. I for one am looking forward to it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) We don't disagree that Hussein had at least at one point WMDs.

2) What would you say "accounting for them" might mean? I'd say that on balance he did refuse to properly account for them, since UN inspectors HAVE pointed out big holes in his accounts of what happened to known stocks of bio-chemical weapons (or materials to make such weapons) and Hussein DID push out the inspectors when they started looking too hard after Gulf War 1.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.
We agree on that, and I agree that Saddam was a Big Bad MF who deserved everything he got. But I do believe that the cost of this war is way larger than the benefits. And I am not talking about money; I am talking about the cost of gutting the UN, the cost of creating a new cold war (between Islam and the west this time), and the cost of increased terrorism (by hitting the wrong target).

2.
There is a big difference between “can not” and “will not” account for something. If it was “will not”, documents or witnesses should have been available to the inspectors by now (or soon). As the situation stands right now, it would appear that it was more a case of “can not”. Bomb any country half back to the Stone Age and see how much records that survive.

And yes, he did throw the UN inspectors out, but he also caved and let them back in when the US threatened to use force (which I approved off). Problem is: GWB chose to attack even after Saddam caved and agreed to the US demands, thereby ruining “threat of using force” as a diplomatic tool.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Primitive, I too think this war was a bad idea, but I don't entirely agree with your points.

Yes, Bush gutted the UN, but now it seems that he wants to repair the damage. Let's give him time to see if he means it.

The 'new cold war' is not GWB's creation, it is a result of at least 100 years of erroneous foreign policy by the former colonial powers. Right now we are going through a crisis in that war, but the war was already there.

Regarding the 'wrong target', although I agree with you I think the USA may have hit the right target while aiming at the wrong one. Time will tell.

I believe that it is far more important now to see what kind of government emerges in Iraq rather than debate the legitimacy of the war. We can't change what happened, but we can try to influence what is happening now.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Try this:

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...tory_id=186940

Saddam Hussein HAS used poison gas against Kurds.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Deccan,
That was not the part of the quotation I was referring too. Nobody in his right mind would deny those crimes. Problem is they happened before Gulf war 1 and any UN sanctions against Iraq, and is therefore irrelevant as an excuse for GWB for Gulf war 2. However, they would have made an excellent excuse for Bush sr. to have done the job properly the first time.

My problem with the quotation is that it implies that Iraq built new WMDs and supported terror against the USA between GW1 and GW2 (Although I conceede that it is written in vague language and don’t include any actual dates)

It is this: “ .. built weapons of mass destruction.... and refused to account for them when confronted by the world” that needs proof. Proof of WMDs (and ties to 9.11) please.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I bet you meant Bush and Blair here. For some reason, when I saw "Clair", I first thought of Claire Short and did a double-take. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ooops, typo - my bad - fixed

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

* Shrug *

On balance, I'd say that I supported the war based on the evidence available at that time. I'd say that Iraq's renewed acceptance of the UN's weapons inspectors at the threat isn't sufficient for me because it was a case too little, too late.

Remember that I'm in the Solomon Islands. Here, we had an amnesty period within which the militants were supposed to hand in their weapons in exchange for not being persecuted. However, in order to avoid conflict, the government kept renewing the amnesty over and over again, and made the entire Townsville Peace Agreement which created the amnesty into a laughing stock.

But I would also say that, even based on the pre-war evidence, GWB's claims that Iraq represented a grave and imminent threat to the U.S. were hyperbole. If the rationale for the war were mostly based on that, then I'd agree that the war was unjustified.

My own pre-war reasons for supporting the war was never based on the imminent threat that Iraq supposedly posed to the U.S. As a Malaysian, I saw the war as justified on humanitarian principles, based on overthrowing a despotic regime, universally hated by its people. I saw a chance to establish a democracy in the Middle East and prove that Islam IS compatible with democracy. And I saw a chance for sending a strong, clear warning to any and all rogue regimes in the world that at least one country would be prepared to militarily intervene against evil-doing, particular to North Korea (which IS a concern, given where my country is). It helps that all these things are GOOD in the long-term for the U.S.'s own interests.

Why would I believe that the U.S. would be prepared to do these things? I admit that I certainly have no right to ask the U.S. and its people to take on this responsibility, but if they do want to do this, then certainly I support them.

Overall, however, I am disappointed with the post-war developments. Despite its pre-war claims to the contrary, it is now painfully obvious that the U.S. never did give much thought or make much effort to determine what sort of post-war government Iraq should have. The huge disparity between the pre-war effort made to properly plan the war and the pre-war effort to plan for the future of Iraq is shameful. The abrupt change of the U.S. administrator, the Last-minute frantic efforts to hire experts who understand the local culture (when such people ought to have been properly identified and contacted well in advance), the inability to deliver proper public services to the Iraqis etc. are nearly enough for me to regret my pre-war support for the effort.

Things may yet turn out right in the end, and I certainly hope that they do, but unless they do, it seems that Iraq will turn into another example in a long list of such examples of the U.S.'s tendency to think in terms of short-term benefits and ignore the big picture.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Two Towers

Vaguely related to this topic, I know, but I just had to tell you guys about this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Translation: We made a big mess, now we don't know how, and can't be bothered to clean it up. How about you do it for us, and how about everybody else helps pay for it?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Is it just me, or do these statements not go together?

And when did Iraq attack the USA in the Last ten years? Not at all. Yet America has attacked Iraq. The fact the some other 'heithens' (not a very nice word)have attacked the US, does not give America the right to strike out at any other percieved enemy, simply because they may share similar religious beliefs.

(edited to make less inflammitory after I read my post again)

[ September 30, 2003, 02:50: Message edited by: Ran-Taro ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The shame ! The shame to do an on topic post !
Please forgive me I sware I won't do it again...

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
29 September 2003

by Dr. George Friedman

The Unpredictability of War and Force Structure

Summary

In the United States' open-ended war against al Qaeda and militant Islam, two factors are driving up requirements for the size of the U.S. military. One is the unpredictability surrounding the number of theaters in which this war will be waged in the next two years, and the second is the type of warfare in which the United States is compelled to engage, which can swallow up huge numbers of troops in defensive operations. However, for several reasons, U.S. defense personnel policies have not yet adjusted to this reality.

Analysis

Prior to the beginning of the Iraq campaign, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked how long the war would Last. His response was both wise and true: He said that he didn't know, because the enemy got to vote. Much of the discussion about the length, cost and requirements of U.S. military operations in Iraq should be answered the same way -- there is no answer because the other side gets to vote. The Iraqi command decided to abandon conventional warfare and shift to guerrilla warfare. It is as unreasonable to ask how long this will Last and how much it will cost as it would have been to ask Abraham Lincoln in 1862 when the Civil War would end and how much it would cost. It is an unanswerable question.

War is extremely predictable, with 20-20 indsight. It is easy to say now that the Soviets would defeat the Germans in World War II. All of us know now that the North Vietnamese had the advantage in Vietnam. We all know now that the Normandy invasion would work. That's the easy part of military analysis; predicting the future is the hard part. It is possible to glimpse the outlines of the general forces that are engaged and to measure their relative strength, but the finer the granularity sought, the harder prediction is. The only certainty to be found is that all wars end eventually, and that the war you are fighting is only occasionally the war you expected to fight.

No one, therefore, knows the course of the U.S.-militant Islamist war. The CIA has produced no secret papers nor uncovered any hidden plans in the caves of Afghanistan that reveal the truth. War is about the difference between plans and events: Nothing goes according to plan, partly because of unexpected failures among the planners and partly because the enemy gets a vote. Carl von Clausewitz, the father of modern military theory, had a word for that: friction. The friction of war creates an ever-widening gap between plans and reality.

That means that the first and most important principle of military planning is to plan for the worst. No general was ever condemned for winning a war with too many troops. Many generals -- and political leaders -- are reviled for not using enough troops. Sometimes the manpower is simply not available; demographics limit the number of troops available. But the lowest ring of the military inferno must be reserved for leaders who take a nation to war, having access to massive force but choosing to mobilize the least numbers they think they can get by with, rather than leaving a healthy -- even unreasonable -- margin to make up for the friction of war. Calibrating force to expected requirements is almost always going to lead to disaster, because as we all know, everything comes in late and over-budget.

Washington is engaged with the question of what constitutes sufficient force structure. As one might imagine, the debate cuts to the heart of everything the United States is doing; the availability of force will determine the success or failure of its war. And here, it appears to us, the administration has chosen a radical course -- one of maintaining a narrow margin of error on force structure, based on plans that do not necessarily take into account that al Qaeda gets to vote.

Last week, while speaking at the National Defense University, Rumsfeld repeated his conviction that the United States had deployed sufficient force in Iraq and that with additional deployments it would be able to contain the situation there. Last week, U.S. officials announced the mobilization of additional reserve and National Guard units for 18 months of duty.

The reality is this: The United States went to war on Sept. 11, 2001, and since that date, it has not increased the aggregate size of its armed forces in any strategically significant way. It has raised the effectively available force by reaching into its reserve and National Guard units. That short-term solution has served well for the first two years of the war. However, deployment requirements tend to increase over the course of a war, so the needs in the first year were relatively light and increased progressively as additional theaters of operation were added.

The problem with this structure of forces is simple. People can choose to leave the military and its reserve and National Guard components -- and they will. Following extensive deployments, or anticipating such deployments, many will leave the active force as their terms expire or leave the reserve components when they can. In order to replace these forces, the pipeline should be full of recruits. This is not World War II. The requirements for all specialties, including combat arms, will not be filled by basic training and a quick advanced course. Even in the simplest specialties, it will take nearly a year to develop the required expertise -- not just to be deployed, but to be deployed and effective. For more complex specialties, the timeline lengthens.

U.S. leaders appear to be giving some attention to maintaining the force at its current size, although we think the expectations on retention in all components are optimistic. But even if they are dead on, the loss of personnel will be most devastating among field-grade officers and senior noncommissioned officers -- who form the backbone of the military. These are men and women in their 30s and 40s who have families and mortgages -- none of which might survive the stress of a manpower plan designed in a way that imposes maximum unpredictability and disruption on mature lives. The net result is that the military might keep its current size but become thin-waisted: lots of young people, lots of gray hair, not nearly enough in between.

The problem, however, is that keeping the force stable is not enough by a long shot. The United States is involved in two significant conflicts, in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also operating in smaller deployments throughout and on the periphery of the Islamic world. Added to this are immediate and potential requirements for homeland security, should al Qaeda strike again, as the U.S. government consistently predicts is likely. When these requirements are added up and compared to the kind of force planning and expectations that were being discussed prior to Sept. 11, it is obvious that the U.S. force is at its limit, even
assuming that the complexities of reserve units weren't added to the mix.

The strategic problem is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the demands on the current force represent the maximum. The force level is decided by the administration; the force requirement is decided by a committee composed of senior Pentagon officials, Congress and al Qaeda. And on this committee, al Qaeda has the decisive vote.

Al Qaeda's strategy is to expand the conflict as broadly as possible. It wants to disperse U.S. forces, but it also wants U.S. forces to intrude as deeply into the Islamic world as possible in order to trigger an uprising not only against the United States, but also against governments allied with the United States. There is a simple-minded answer to this, which is to refuse to intervene. The flaw in that answer is that it would serve al Qaeda's purpose just as well, by proving that the United States is weak and vulnerable. Intervention carries the same cost as non-intervention, but with the upside that it might produce victories.

Therefore, the United States cannot easily decline combat when it is offered. Al Qaeda intends to offer as much combat as possible. From the Philippines to Morocco, from central Asia to Central Africa, the scope -- if not the tempo -- of operations remains in al Qaeda's hands. Should Indonesia blow sky high or Egypt destabilize, both of which are obviously among al Qaeda's hopes, U.S. forces will be required to respond.

There is another aspect to this. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States is engaged in guerrilla wars. The force required to combat a guerrilla army is not determined by the size of the guerrilla forces, but rather by defensive requirements. A very small guerrilla force can menace a large number of targets, even if it cannot hit them all. Those targets must be protected for military or political reasons. Pacification cannot take place when the population is exposed to guerrilla forces at the will of the guerrillas. A narrow defensive posture, as has been adopted in Afghanistan, cedes pacification. In Iraq, where ceding pacification is not a political option, the size of the force is determined not by the enemy's force, but by the target set that must be protected.

Two factors, therefore, are driving up requirements for the size of the U.S. armed forces. First, no one can define the number of theaters in which the United States will be deployed over the next two years. Second, the type of warfare in which the United States is compelled to engage after the initial assault is carried out is a force hog: It can swallow up huge numbers of troops in duties that are both necessary and parasitic -- such as patrolling 15 bridges, none of which might ever be attacked during the war, but all of which must be defended.

Rumsfeld's reassurances that there are enough forces in Iraq miss the key question: Are there enough troops available and in the pipeline to deal with unexpected events in two years? Iraq might be under control by then, or it might not. Rumsfeld doesn't know that, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi doesn't, Osama bin Laden doesn't. No one knows whether that is true. Nor does anyone know whether the United States will be engaged in three or four other theaters of operations by that time. It is certainly al Qaeda's intention to make that happen, and so far al Qaeda's record in drawing the United States into difficult situations should not be discounted.

The problem is that on the one hand, the Defense Department is in the process of running off critically needed troops with unpredictable and spasmodic call-ups. Second, the number of men and women in the training pipeline has not taken a quantum leap forward in the course of the war. The United States is engaged in a global war, but its personnel policies have not adjusted to that reality. This is the first major war in American history that has not included a large expansion of the armed forces.

There are a number of reasons for this. At the beginning of the war, the administration envisioned it as a primarily covert war involving special forces and some air power. Officials did not see this war as a division-level conflict. They were wrong. They did not count on their enemy's ability to resort to effective guerrilla warfare. They did not expect the old manpower hog to raise its ugly head. In general, Rumsfeld believed that technology could substitute for manpower, and that large conventional formations were not necessary. He was right in every case but one: large-scale guerrilla warfare. Or more precisely, the one thing the United States didn't want to be involved in is the one thing the enemy dealt up. When you think about it, that makes sense.

The assumption on which this war began was that there was ample U.S. force structure for the requirements. At this point, that is true only if one assumes there are no further surprises pending. Since this war has been all about surprises, any force structure built on that assumption is completely irresponsible.

We suspect that Rumsfeld and his people are aware of this issue. The problem is that the Bush administration is in an election year, and increasing the force by 50 percent or doubling it is not something officials want to do now. It cannot be done by conscription. Not only are the mechanisms for large-scale conscriptions missing, but a conscript army is the Last thing needed: The U.S. military requires a level of technical proficiency and commitment that draftees don't bring to bear.

To keep the force at its current size, Congress must allocate a large amount of money for personnel retention. A father of three with a mortgage payment based on his civilian income cannot live on military pay. Military pay must not be permitted to rise; it must be forced to soar. This is not only to retain the current force size but to increase it. In addition to bringing in raw recruits and training them, this also means, as in World War II, bringing back trained personnel who have left the service and -- something the military will gag over -- bringing in trained professionals from outside, directly into the chain of command and not just as civilian employees.

Thinking out of the box is something Washington always talks about but usually does by putting a box of corn flakes on top of their heads. That's all right in peacetime -- but this is war, and war is a matter of life and death. In the end, this is the problem: While American men and women fight and die on foreign land, the Pentagon's personnel officers are acting like this is peacetime. The fault lies with a series of unexpected events and Rumsfeld's tendency to behave as if nothing comes as a surprise.

The defense secretary needs to understand that in war, being surprised is not a failure -- it is the natural commission. The measure of a good command is not that one anticipates everything, but that one quickly adjusts and responds to the unexpected. No one expected this type of guerrilla war in Iraq, although perhaps in retrospect, everyone should have. But it is here, and next year will bring even more surprises. The Army speaks of "A Force of One." We prefer "The Force Ready for the Unexpected." The current U.S. force is not.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Saw a TV documentary a few nights ago about the current situation in Baghdad. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ma/3097864.stm ) It was pretty well balanced, interviewing both Iraqis and americans, ppl on the streets, soldiers and politicians (including de Mello, a few days before his death.) I won't go into details of the atrocities documented because someone will label it inflammatory, but suffice to say some of the footage was utterly horrific.

You all know where I stand on the war, so I'll try not to go over ground already covered, but I'll say this:

Soldiers do not make good policemen. I can see why the Iraqis are protesting against the US, despite their role in the fall of Saddam. From what I saw there are probably Iraqis out there now who were opposed to Saddam 12 months ago, but now find themselves wishing he'd come back.

I felt sorry for some of the US soldiers out there, who were doing their best to make peace with the locals, but many others came across as ignorant, brutal and arrogant. The office-bound military types had absolutely no clue (or at least were in complete denial) as to what was happening at street level. They flat out refused to even acknowledge the problems their own troops were showing the BBC's reporters.

However I feel most sorry for the random Iraqis getting beaten up and shot just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes I know these things and worse happened under Saddam as well, but these are supposed to be the good guys, aren't they? Surely the current situation was avoidable. Surely the power vacuum and the resultant lawlessness could have been predicted and planned for. It seems as though no planning at all has gone into the peace action, despite the overwhelming effectiveness and forethought of the war action.

The conspiracy theorist in me believes that Bush wants as much chaos and destruction in Iraq as possible, so that Halliburton and the rest can reap all those oil dollars in cleanup costs, but I accept that this kind of motive is only circumstantially provable. Nonetheless, even if it's all down to negligence rather than malice then it's just as bad for the people suffering there.

Just my 0.02 local currency. I really wish I could point you all to an mpeg of the documentary, I promise you it would add a lot of weight to what I've said. Did anyone see it?