Tax the rich, pay for 1 percent of budget
The tax debate rages on, with the more liberal Democrats in Washington insisting on raising taxes for the rich (less liberal Democrats say they’re open to at least a temporary extension of the current tax rates for all). After four years of jacking up federal spending, congressional Democrats and President Obama now want you to believe that they’ve become fiscal hawks because they want to raise tax rates on 2 percent of Americans.
To which The Economist magazine says, hooey:
The irony in this drama is that the money at stake is, in the larger scheme, trivial. Raising taxes on the top 2% of households, as Mr Obama proposes, would bring in $34 billion next year: enough to cover nine days’ worth of the deficit. Indeed, the problem with the tax debate is not that Democrats and Republicans disagree, but that they mostly agree. Democrats think 98% of Americans should not pay higher taxes; the Republicans say 100% should not.
In a budget of $3.5 trillion, $34 billion comes out to a little less than 1 percent. Heck, it’s only a fraction of the annual interest payment on our national debt, and wouldn’t even cover the budget of eight separate federal departments: Defense, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, State, Housing and Urban Development, Education and Homeland Security.
The big money is in a middle-class tax hike, for the simple reason that — contrary to what Democrats want you to believe — the middle class receives about three-quarters of the savings from the Bush tax cuts.
Cutting the deficit will also take more than the Republican proposal to return non-security spending to 2008 levels. The impact of that plan would be larger than “taxing the rich” and might inspire some economic confidence rather than sapping it, but those cuts alone would still be woefully inadequate. The broader plan they’re expected to roll out Thursday had better be more impressive than that.
The deficit will shrink to some degree as the economy recovers and more people get back to working and paying taxes. As former Congressman J.C. Watts has said, “We don’t need more taxes, we need more taxpayers!”
To get the rest of the way there, “taxing the rich” won’t come close to sufficing. If you favor tax hikes to close the budget gap, you better be prepared for everyone’s taxes to rise.
Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
199 comments Add your comment
JDW
September 21st, 2010
5:24 pm
@ MD
“I believe pre-ression Ireland would beg to differ. Their entire economic engine was being driven by relocating companies directly due to tax rates.”
Actually I located a call center in Ireland during that time period. The main drivers were as I said before wages, benefits and skill set. In fact in the case of Ireland those were the factors thare really drove the growth.
Tax rates were on the list but not near the top.
Kyle Wingfield
September 21st, 2010
5:33 pm
JDW: That’s how inflation adjustment works…you pick a year and adjust the dollar figures both preceding and following it. It’s not as if the figures are adjusted for some years and not others. There may be some small variance based on which year you pick, but as long as all years are pegged to the same year, the adjustment should be valid.
And on No. 4, my point is that the current administration *isn’t* better than what came before it, which was bad enough — that, in the best-case scenario (which budget projections for future years always are), they will increase spending at the same rate as the too-quick pace we saw during the Bush years.
md
September 21st, 2010
5:33 pm
“Question: How many companies that offshored their work are coming BACK because of the inferior quality of the work done….or the inability to speak ENGLISH clearly?? ”
Not nearly enough. The ones coming back are a drop in the bucket compared to the ones staying away. We will more than likely never be able to compete in the labor cost arena for a long time. And the quality will do nothing but go up in the developing countries, so that will hurt too.
md
September 21st, 2010
5:35 pm
“Actually I located a call center in Ireland during that time period. The main drivers were as I said before wages, benefits and skill set. In fact in the case of Ireland those were the factors thare really drove the growth. ”
Yes, we moved several too – cost and availability of labor for the given job was fairly equal, the tax rates were not.
Rafe Hollister
September 21st, 2010
5:43 pm
HDB: I don’t know about many coming back, I only hear about those leaving. Take the Candy companies, they left because of the price of sugar, nothing to do with taxes or quality, but because of big government. The US Govt subsidy on Sugar costs us jobs. Sugar is cheaper in Mexico, no subsidy or tariff on imported suger. If Sugar was your principal ingredient and consumed most of your raw material cost, where would you make candy?
Other corporations have different reasons, but the only way to get them back and attract others is lower taxes to make up for lower labor and raw material costs in other parts of the world.
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
5:45 pm
@ JDW
“Actually I located a call center in Ireland during that time period. The main drivers were as I said before wages, benefits and skill set. In fact in the case of Ireland those were the factors thare really drove the growth.
Tax rates were on the list but not near the top.”
That is where the UNIONS have out priced labor in the U.S.
Take the example of The Big Three, GM, Ford and Chrysler:
The United Auto Workers are paid more than TWICE that of the NON-UNION Toyota, Honda and Nissan factory workers in the Southern states. AND the quality is better!
You go on the world stage and try to sell your products that cost more than twice to maufacture and are half the quality of your competitors’ products… That does not work in the long run.
So, while we are talking taxes, the Unions and government regulations are also PUSHING companies overseas.
Linda
September 21st, 2010
5:48 pm
JDW @ 4:49, I’m so impressed that you are a “high earner.”
Small businesses don’t know if they, let alone a new employee, will be profitable next year or even viable.
I used simple math for you & others to understand my point.
New hires & companies CAN’T earn a profit if the tax rate is 75%.
If you believe your hypothesis (the higher the tax rate, the more likely companies will hire), you should join Obama’s economic team.
No company can project profits & losses without being able to fill in the blanks. Uncertainty has morphed into fearfulness & then into panic during this administration.
Companies are having trouble raising capital. The resources the govt. spends comes from the economy. When the govt. increases spending, it crowds out the resources that business owners could have invested in the enterprises. Annual private fixed nonresidential investment has fallen by $327 B (19%).
Brian
September 21st, 2010
5:48 pm
Taxes smaxes! Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT. Tax imports and let’s REALLY “level the playing field”. Become America again and stop catering to the NWO crowd. Ahh…gee…a little late for that eh? Taxes! Please! Tax WHAT!
JDW
September 21st, 2010
5:53 pm
Kyle, if you pick a year prior to or after all years compared inflation pegging works well if not you skew the results of the earlier and later years leading to invalid percentage comparisons. If the point were raw dollars I would agree with you but given the point is percentage increase I still maintain, given the data used, the proper comparison is actual dollars.
I think the Administration is spending at a rate less than what came before them, which given the mess inherited is understandable if not optimum.
But lets cut to the meat, why on earth should we reelect the same party that got us into this mess. Especially when the only real successful administration of the last 30 years was a Democratic one?
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
5:53 pm
This just in…
Obama finance team proposing a 1% across-the-board transaction tax …
President Obama’s finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is
to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1%
tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.
Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will
have a 1% tax charged. If your paycheck or your Social Security or whatever is
direct deposit, 1% tax will be charged; if you hand-carry a check in to deposit it,
1% tax charged; if you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged.This is from the
man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see
one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what
you learn.
Some will say, “Aw it’s just 1%— .” Are you kidding me, it’s a 1% tax increase
across the board.
Remember, once the tax is there, they can raise it at will.
See full article at:
http://www.standard.net/node/44797
DawgDad
September 21st, 2010
5:57 pm
“Democrats think 98% of Americans should not pay higher taxes”
The veracity of this statement is highly, highly questionable. Little things like actual tax hikes (Obamacare, for one) and deficit spending legislation keeps sending the other message, over and over again. How stupid do you think we are?
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
5:59 pm
@JWD:
I guess Barney Frank, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the housing market decline.
What about Maxine Waters and the Community Reinvestment Act that pushed everyone to have a heart and let everyone own a home. And they used “Racism” to bend the hearts of Liberals and the “compassionate conservative” (whatever that is). You can’t blame it all on Bush, that record is broken…
I am in Real Estate and saw it first hand. What about you?
Kyle Wingfield
September 21st, 2010
6:04 pm
JDW: Not to make this a blog about economic methodology, but nothing could be more common than adjusting for inflation before comparing data across multiple years, and organizations like the OECD and World Bank do this with base years in the middle of the data set all the time.
And it is absolutely necessary in this case, because inflation has not been “constant” throughout these years. A 5-percentage-point increase between 2000 and 2001 is not equal to a 5-percentage-point increase between 1995 and 1996, or between 2008 and 2009, because inflation levels were different.
Linda
September 21st, 2010
6:04 pm
JDW @ 5:53, When you read a book, do you start in the middle? I am not defending either party & we all agree that there are many to blame for the “mess,” but the Reps. did not start it. It started during the Clinton adm. with the ideology that home ownership was a right, not a privilege. Clinton BRAGGED in his autobiography about his participation.
JDW
September 21st, 2010
6:04 pm
@ Linda, part of being a successful business person is dealing with uncertainty. I don’t buy the argument that good business people are incapable of projecting profits.
The point you seem to miss is that business operating profits have absolutely nothing to do with taxes. That is why operating profit is a more important number than net profit. It is the number that drives employment not net profit. If you want to talk capital investment that is another subject.
I understand that the fact that higher tax rates make it easier for large companies to add employees is a bit counter intuitive but if you think about it you will understand. If I am going to pay you $100K I am risking $100K in pretax earnings. If tax rates are 35% my real risk is $65K…on the other hand if tax rates are 50% my real risk is $50K. The more taxes increase the less risk there is to hiring assuming the business is generating operation profits.
I agree companies are having trouble raising capital for a variety of reasons. As I recall that is where this discussion started. I don’t think raising tax rates on high earners impacts the job market a bit. On the other hand incentives for investing in NEW companies, not existing ones would have an impact.
JDW
September 21st, 2010
6:06 pm
@ Linda I disagree, I think it started with Ronnie and Clinton was the only respite in 30 years of insanity.
JDW
September 21st, 2010
6:08 pm
Kyle, you are missing the point. Using a base year in the middle of the data skews the percentage results. If you take the time to find a source that has the nums in 1980 base you will see what I mean. I would do it but I have a hungry 5 year old on my hands.
Linda
September 21st, 2010
6:12 pm
Usmc Dawg @ 5:59, Are you aware that govt. intervention from the Natl. Housing Act of 1934 is what really started the whole problem? It was FHA that prevented lending in risky neighborhoods. They even printed & distributed the maps to the real estate companies. That led to protests & the CRA being passed under Carter.
John
September 21st, 2010
6:26 pm
There’s a few things that should be taken into account in regards to offshoring of jobs. As has been pointed out, many companies are realizing the savings they thought offshoring would bring about are not always there.
Someone pointed out quality. I’m an IT professional and have spent much time not only working with offshore accounts but I’ve also spent a good bit of time in India. I see the quality. Each time we have to send work back because of quality, the savings starts to erode…this happens quite often. Part of the quality issues have to do with rushing people thru classes where they may learn a coding language but don’t learn or understand concepts or logical thinking. There’s also cultural differences. For instance, I have seen where many do not know or understand what a social security number is much less the importance of it’s privacy and they have access to this information along with bank or credit card account number, etc. Then of course, there’s language issues and customer satisfaction. Companies also realize when they offshore work, they loose some control. There have been many cases where call center employees of credit card companies have given either reduced fees or rates for customers when they are not authorized to do so by the credit card company. Another thing happening is offshored work is being offshored. As IT has exploded in India, quality employees are becoming harder to find and wages are rising. Therefore, many Indian companies are offshoring work that have been offshored to them to other countries. So now we have and American company who offshore it’s work to an Indian company and the Indian company turns around and offshore it to another foreign country where wages or less.
As far as “big government” is concerned. There are laws to protect employees as well as consumers that many countries don’t have. Of course, these have cost to companies. Should we do away with these laws? Cheaper materials can also mean less quality. Think about the past couple of years. We’ve seen unhealthy toys coming from China using lead based paints. We’ve seen cheaper drywall coming from China that has high levels of dangerous chemicals people of getting sick inside their homes.
There’s more than wages or “big government” or taxes to think about when it comes to offshoring jobs.
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
6:30 pm
Linda,
Good point. BUT, again, if you remember the “mood” of the country and especially Congress between 2002 and 2005. The Maxine Waters and Barney Frank, and liberals pushed and even DEMANDED that banks make loans for people (read minority) that should not have been given loans to begin with. President Bush and the administration warned deomcrats and were ignored.
People like JDW won’t acknowledge this. Just click on the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQWk1Wp3L4
Linda
September 21st, 2010
6:35 pm
JDW @ 6:04, There is no uncertainty. There’s only fear & panic.
There’s not a single person in this country that knows absolutely for sure what ANY of their taxes will be in 2 1/2 mts. Unless businesses have read 20,000 pages of new regulations (unlike the bodies who passed them) AND understand them, they do not know what the new rules are for running their businesses.
Corporations do not pay taxes. Small businesses pay taxes on net earnings & usually file on their personal income taxes. You can spin it every way you want, but 65% & 75% is higher than 35%.
I’ve had my own small business for decades & you remind me of my mother-in-law before she passed.
left wing
September 21st, 2010
6:36 pm
For those that want to blame the GSE’s, they should read this article:
http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/08/27/fannie-freddie-acquitted/
Freddie and Fannie were not players in the subprime market. Their charter requires them to deal with conventional loans.
Linda
September 21st, 2010
6:48 pm
JDW @ 6:06, You need to educate yourself on this matter & I suggest starting by reading the synopsis of the Fannie Mae annual reports from the mid ’90’s. The fed. govt. REQUIRED the GSEs to make subprime loans & issued quotas for such.
The NYT even predicted the crisis in 1999!
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?pagewanted=1
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
6:49 pm
@Leftwing
The Subprime market was not the ONLY culprit in the Housing market meltdown.
Alt- A lenders as well as Conventional Lenders who were giving TAX ID, STATED Income, and No income/no asset loans to Illegal Aliens, etc.
Also, Liberals, The Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus were DEMANDING banks to make loans to the portion of their constituents that did not deserve a home loan so they could also “Achieve the American Dream”.
You cannot duck your head in the sand and overlook the mismanagement of Freddie and Fannie.
I was in the industry and saw it first hand. What about you? What is your experience?
md
September 21st, 2010
6:52 pm
John,
Walmart sells a lot of crap – but it sells.
The folks that frequent walamart can’t afford quality, that is why they shop at walmart.
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
6:58 pm
Linda @ 6:48:
BINGO! You really nailed it with that NYT article. It amazes me how we humans, all of us, just easily forget what was going on at the time.
People thought of mortgage loans as though they were value meals at the drive-in window at McDonalds: “I want a #4 supersized to go, and hurry up with that”
@@
September 21st, 2010
6:59 pm
Just as we’re seeing the “unintended” consequences of Obamacare, 11 million low-income families will see a tax increase with the implementation of Obama’s “Child Tax Credit.”
It’s amazing how gullible people can be.
John
September 21st, 2010
7:00 pm
We keep hearing that Democrats wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. This is not correct. The Democrats want to let part of the temporary Bush tax policy expire and revert back to what they had been. This is not increasing taxes since the tax cuts were temporary. To say it’s a tax increase would then mean that George W. Bush and the Republicans in congress at the time it was passed are really the ones who wanted to increase taxes, otherwise, they would have made it permanent.
Consider this…when I was laid off from my job, my mortgage company worked with me to keep me in my home. They offered me a moratorium where I did not have to make mortgage payments for 6 months. At the end of the 6 months, I had to make a get back on track and start paying my mortgage again. This was temporary relief to help me stay in my home. Not making payments for 6 months and then start having to make them again didn’t increase my payment…it just reverted back to what it was 6 months earlier. Again this was temporary.
Another example could be a new employee who receives a $10,000 one time signing bonus for joining the firm. The next year he does not get that signing bonus. Does that mean the company cut his salary by $10,000?
Linda
September 21st, 2010
7:00 pm
Usmc Dawg @ 6:30, I’ve seen this before but thanks for sharing it again. I added it to my bookmarks. I’m so tired of the liberals blaming Bush for everything. Affordable Housing does not even sound like a Rep. idea. The Dems. required the GSEs to relax their lending standards that were the backbone of the residential housing market for decades & buy, bundle & sell subprime loans that ended up in MBSs all over the world. Wall St. could not have dreamed this up in a million years.
@@
September 21st, 2010
7:02 pm
Oops! Change that to:
It’s amazing how gullible left-wingers can be.
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
7:12 pm
@John
Back when the (Bush) tax cuts were implemented, the Democrats said that “the” (meaning “all”) Bush Tax cuts were only for the Rich.
Now Obama and the Dem crooks in Congress are saying that 98% of the Bush Tax cuts are “middle class”. That is so crooked!
Nancy Pelosi, by direction of the Obama administration, is now calling the 98% of the “Bush Tax cuts”, the Obama Tax cuts.
Unbelievable!
Wake up
Linda
September 21st, 2010
7:16 pm
John @ 7:00, The Bush adm. was unable to make the ‘01/’03 tax cuts permanent.
If the fed. govt. came to your home & said they were taking your house & your cars, you would call it theft.
The fed. govt. wants to take money from the top earners–the people who are earning it fair & square. It’s not the govt.’s money.
Tax credits are given. Tax hikes are taken. When the govt. takes over half of your money, it’s theft.
Linda
September 21st, 2010
7:19 pm
Usmc Dawg, What does Usmc stand for?
John
September 21st, 2010
7:20 pm
“I’m so tired of the liberals blaming Bush for everything. Affordable Housing does not even sound like a Rep. idea.”…really Linda?
From CNNMoney.com
“Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
The National Association of Home Builders, along with the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association, are drafting a letter to Alphonso Jackson, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), arguing that middle-income home buyers are the ones that will get hurt by the proposed plan, the NAHB told CNN/Money.
In April, the HUD proposed new rules that would raise the percentage of loans bought by the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that finance borrowers whose incomes are at or below the median for their area, according to the Wall Street Journal . “
md
September 21st, 2010
7:23 pm
John,
In both of your scenarios, the key is you had money to spend, now you do not. How is that going to help a sick economy??
We already know the misfits don’t know how to manage our money, now they want more of it to mismanage.
Independent
September 21st, 2010
7:23 pm
How about returning SECURITY spending to 2000 levels – or else come up with the new taxes to cover the SECURITY spending (Iraq and Afganistan wars and increased post 9/11 security spending). That is where a large part of the deficits have come from for the last 10 years. The Bush tax cuts were wrong when they were enacted – cutting taxes while spending is going up = higher deficits.
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
7:25 pm
Linda, USMC stands for “United States Marine Corps”
Are you in the Real Estate industry or Banking industry?
You sound way too analytical to be an Agent.
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
7:29 pm
Hey independent,
How about CUTTING spending, period.
We should cut spending on foreign countries across the board by 1/2 immediately.
Most of these countries take it for granted and we simply need to scale back on all spending.
Don’t blame the tax cuts for mismanaged SPENDING, though.
Old Man
September 21st, 2010
7:39 pm
USMC, if you were in the mortgage business then you know full well that most loans were not then and are not now underwritten by Fannie and Freddie. Just because hannity, boortz, limbaugh, beck, and every other right-wing vomiter says it doesn’t make it so (remember the WMDs?).
And if you were in the mortgage lending biz for the last ten years, then you also know or should know that Fannie and Freddie were late coming into the sub-prime market and subprimes were not then and are not now a major source of their market share. You were in the mortgage business, who forced you to give a loan to anybody? Did all these mortgage brokers hold guns to potential client’s heads because of Barney Frank?
The credit card companies send 4 billion solicitations via mail every year. Are they “forcing” people to get credit cards and max them out? Why the hate for Fannie and Freddie but not for, say GMAC, the nation’s largest lender for cars? They are forcing people into either very low quality cars or cars they cannot afford, sometimes both. At least with a mortgage a person can write off the interest, leave equity to heirs, and a house doesn’t depreciate by 35% when you drive it off a lot.
I personally work and pay for my mortgage. But that’s because paying outright for a house is not an option on my 2 income family. I make extra payments, but like all my neighbors, the family is one catastrophe away from bankruptcy. It’s very difficult to save enough money to pay for a very typical house. I think it’s insane that any person has to float a quarter million dollar loan to get into a house. But that’s not even an expensive home in this day and age. Neither high wage doctors or lawyers can pay out of pocket for their houses, let alone the millions of “cube zombies” who work downtown.
The only people forcing home loans on anybody is the private banking cartel. These anti-regulation advocates are willing to pay billions to hold on their power, and based on this blog, their misinformation campaign is even more successful than their 2005 bankruptcy reforms. They have people defending the banks against their own elected representatives. Did PT Barnum know his stuff or what?
Old Man
September 21st, 2010
7:53 pm
USMC, I agree with you on cutting spending. Let’s start with the military and the VA! I didn’t benefit one iota from Vietnam, Panama, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, or all the other destruction in our name by our military.
Why should I have to pay for drugs and prosthetic limbs of people who: 1) couldn’t get into college; 2) whose parents didn’t save enough to pay for college; 3) weren’t smart enough to get a scholarship; 4) couldn’t get a job with only a HS diploma, or; 5) were just plain old no account bums and there was no other place for them?
Linda
September 21st, 2010
7:56 pm
John @ 7:20, Make it easy for us, Sir. Everyone who participates or reads this blog does not have time to research CNN Money. Do you know how to include a website? If not, I will help you. Was that the 1st or 2nd Bush? Was that in the ’80s or 2000s?
Read what I wrote @ 6:04. I NEVER said G. Bush was innocent. What I have proven with reference to a liberal website @ 6:48 was that the Dems. were requiring the GSEs to make subprime loans & that the crisis was predicted years before Bush was elected. This proves that the Dems. have blood on their hands in the worst preventable world-wide economic crisis in history.
And you come back at me blaming one of the Bushes. Man up!
Linda
September 21st, 2010
7:59 pm
Independent @ 7:23, Are you aware that the Dem’s economic stimulus plan was more expensive than both wars combined?
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
8:01 pm
Hey Old Man,
I partially agree with you that Fannie and Freddie were not the only ones to blame.
Just like George Bush cannot be blamed for the mess we are in now.
Just because Olbermann, Madow, Chris Mathews, Anderson Cooper and the rest of your disingenuous, HATEFUL idols say so. (and Chemical weapons which are WMD’s were found in IRAQ)
Now, I do feel for your scenario with respect to finances as it is very similar to mine. However, don’t ignore the fact that our tax system is broken Congress spends WAY TOO MUCH MONEY.
You and I are in it together, as we all are.
Tell me what is wrong with “The Fair Tax”.
Why do your talking heads (I presume you are a liberal democrat who thinks he is moderate) “pimp” this “class warfare”, marxist mentality of what is “FAIR”?
That Solves nothing.
Old Man
September 21st, 2010
8:12 pm
USMC, we know their were chemical weapons in Iraq, we have the receipts. Don’t you remember? Saddam Hussein was our ally during the Iraq/Iran war during the 80s.
What I am talking about is the “nucular yellowcake” of which Dim Son Bush spoke in his State of the Union. Or the final proof “that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?” Where are those WMD? “Gotta be somewhere?” Right?
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
8:14 pm
Old Man @ 7:53
Your Narcissism is shining through… What do you mean, Why should we pay for the military?
“I didn’t get anything from this or that event…” -selfish Old man
You need to go travel the world. It will enlighten you.
People don’t like us because of our successful history and prosperity.
How ungrateful…
khc
September 21st, 2010
8:16 pm
old man, while you make a point, aren’t you being a bit harsh on our vets? i wish all congressman and exec branch folks had more skin in the game (ie their sons and daughters) then maybe we would not be rushing to war (aid the military industrial complex ike warned us about). usmc dawg, pretty limp on the chemical weapons issue…..surely by now you understand how misdirected our efforts have been with regard to iraq and afgan.
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
8:19 pm
Old Man,
You said WMD’s. And Chemical weapons ARE WMD’s.
I know that doesn’t fit your smear, but it’s the truth.
And I guess you have forgotten Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the rest in Congress and the Brits, etc. who ALL(Congress) concurred AND VOTED on going to war. But yet it was only George Bush who just decided to commit political suicide and go to war for NO REASON.
Wake up Sap!
Linda
September 21st, 2010
8:24 pm
Usmc @ 7:25, I’ve been on the floor bowing to you for five minutes & it’s still not enough. Thank you for serving our country & protecting me & my family.
You should capitalize USMC.
I don’t reveal much about myself on these blogs, but we have a lot in common. I’m one of the most disgusting UGA alumni this side of I-75. You’re not from the country, are you?
Obama is considered by many economists as the most anti-business president in the history of our country. Rather than choose people with business experience, his advisers & czars are from the academic realms. What I admire most about this president is that he has been able to pick jackasses from the jumbo elephant schools, the ivery/ivory/ivy leagues, even though they haven’t won a national title in 100 years.
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
8:28 pm
khc,
What is “limp” is people like you who sit on the sidelines and play “Monday morning Quarterback” with your “by now you know… comment. That’s lame.
There is now a new democracy in the Middle East and One less Evil Dictator and sons.
I guess hundreds of thousands of Kurds getting “Chemically” exterminated by Sadam Hussein was ok with you and Old Man because it was out if sight and out of mind.
But you and your psuedo-intellectualism sit on the sidelines while real leaders are making the tough decisions in the world WITHOUT hindsight…
md
September 21st, 2010
8:34 pm
“Or the final proof “that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?” Where are those WMD? “Gotta be somewhere?” Right?”
Well, if one wants to get technical, that type of WMD has not been found – but don’t mistake that with did not exist – that we do not know………