Would you support Iraq war if you had to pay?
CR
they had to either:
A. Go to Iraq and fight themselves.
B. Make monthly payments on their share of the cost.
I just have a feeling most people support the war because it doesn't
directly effect them.
Miller
"CR" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ab0ed1b.04082...@posting.google.com...
I for one, do not feel comfortable with the billions of dollars that are
going to have to be accounted for after this is all over. And Icertianly do
not approve of my countrymen fighting and dyiong for me.
Scott
FiSH
must be in it for the long run.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
"Miller" <chumley70...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:10iqang...@corp.supernews.com...
Immortalist
Do you mean how many would attack for the reasons we did or do you mean under any
circumstances possible?
Asmodeus
@posting.google.com:
> I just have a feeling most people support the war because it doesn't
> directly effect them.
You're an idiot.
I do support the war, I would be there if I weren't too old
to join, and we do pay for it, nitwit.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Free thought
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || Free America
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.asmodeus-space.com
CR
I'm not sure what you mean. Suppose we took a vote on invading Iraq
and 70% voted yes we should. How much would that 70% go down if they
had to make payments?
CR
> find out more here, check out your national debt clock, looks like you guys
> must be in it for the long run.
>
> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
I wonder how that compares to other countries? I've heard that the US
debt is not that bad when compared to the overall GDP, but 25K per
person seems like a lot to me.
Immortalist
"CR" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ab0ed1b.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<LKSdnbSgJYo...@comcast.com>...
> > "CR" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1ab0ed1b.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > > How many U.S. citizens would have made the decision to invade Iraq if
> > > they had to either:
> > >
> > > A. Go to Iraq and fight themselves.
> > >
> > > B. Make monthly payments on their share of the cost.
> > >
> > > I just have a feeling most people support the war because it doesn't
> > > directly effect them.
> >
> > Do you mean how many would attack for the reasons we did or do you mean under
any
> > circumstances possible?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. Suppose we took a vote on invading Iraq
> and 70% voted yes we should. How much would that 70% go down if they
> had to make payments?
What would the reason be for attacking though? And would different reasons draw
different percentages?
CR
> cr...@hotmail.com (CR) wrote in news:1ab0ed1b.0408251325.61e96894
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > I just have a feeling most people support the war because it doesn't
> > directly effect them.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> I do support the war, I would be there if I weren't too old
> to join, and we do pay for it, nitwit.
Really? You get a monthly bill? How much is it?
Paul Bramscher
How about this: everyone take 1 tax dollar, and carve it up yourself.
Would you spent about half of it on the military? Or would you put them
back down to the 10% or so where it should belong?
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
I'm an avid camper and enjoy our national parks. I can't figure out why
virtually none of our parks have showers (like European hostels) and
most of them utilize structures built 50-70 years ago by the CCC. We
have the same neglect in almost every other non-military and non-pork
area of the federal budget.
ta
investment, otherwise they wouldn't have been our accomplices in this
debacle, eh?
Immortalist
"Paul Bramscher" <brams00...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:cglgmk$bfg$1...@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
> CR wrote:
>
> > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<LKSdnbSgJYo...@comcast.com>...
> >
> >>"CR" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1ab0ed1b.04082...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >>>How many U.S. citizens would have made the decision to invade Iraq if
> >>>they had to either:
> >>>
> >>>A. Go to Iraq and fight themselves.
> >>>
> >>>B. Make monthly payments on their share of the cost.
> >>>
> >>>I just have a feeling most people support the war because it doesn't
> >>>directly effect them.
> >>
> >>Do you mean how many would attack for the reasons we did or do you mean under
any
> >>circumstances possible?
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean. Suppose we took a vote on invading Iraq
> > and 70% voted yes we should. How much would that 70% go down if they
> > had to make payments?
>
> How about this: everyone take 1 tax dollar, and carve it up yourself.
> Would you spent about half of it on the military? Or would you put them
> back down to the 10% or so where it should belong?
> http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>
Preferably during only those times when it was necessary for existence. But if
the crime rate goes down is this like an argument to get rid of the police force?
Or are you arguing for "less" military spending or "no" military spending?
> I'm an avid camper and enjoy our national parks. I can't figure out why
> virtually none of our parks have showers (like European hostels) and
> most of them utilize structures built 50-70 years ago by the CCC. We
> have the same neglect in almost every other non-military and non-pork
> area of the federal budget.
What is the history on that one? Why cold showers? Those parks are domesticated
wilderness.
Asmodeus
@posting.google.com:
> Really? You get a monthly bill? How much is it?
It's called taxes, bozo. Since you're on the dole, you wouldn't
know about paying taxes.
CR
>
>
> It's called taxes, bozo. Since you're on the dole, you wouldn't
> know about paying taxes.
You're missing the point. The point is that the amount we get taxed is
not connected to how we spend our money. Our taxes go into a general
fund. Our taxes have gone down a tiny bit in the last few years (a
good thing) but spending has gone way up (a bad thing). A lot of our
taxes are hidden, like withholding and gas taxes. So basically is easy
to say "yeah let's go kill some foreigners!!". You're not going to
notice the difference, directly. Indirectly, over the long run, there
is a big difference. I think that's why the stock market is tanking.
Government spending is increasing at 8% a year. You can't just keep
doing that and expect nothing to happen.
CR
> How about this: everyone take 1 tax dollar, and carve it up yourself.
> Would you spent about half of it on the military? Or would you put them
> back down to the 10% or so where it should belong?
> http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
I would spend more than 50% on the military. That's one of the very
few legitimate functions of government. To protect our rights, not
infringe on them. Social spending only infringes on our rights. I
would, however, reduce the amount of military spending. But I would
eliminate just about everything else.
> I'm an avid camper and enjoy our national parks. I can't figure out why
> virtually none of our parks have showers (like European hostels) and
> most of them utilize structures built 50-70 years ago by the CCC. We
> have the same neglect in almost every other non-military and non-pork
> area of the federal budget.
I am too. But it's wrong to use threats of violence to extort money
from citizens to pay for your (and mine) warm showers.
Paul Bramscher
> Paul Bramscher <brams00...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
>
>
>>How about this: everyone take 1 tax dollar, and carve it up yourself.
>>Would you spent about half of it on the military? Or would you put them
>>back down to the 10% or so where it should belong?
>>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>
>
> I would spend more than 50% on the military. That's one of the very
> few legitimate functions of government. To protect our rights, not
> infringe on them. Social spending only infringes on our rights. I
> would, however, reduce the amount of military spending. But I would
> eliminate just about everything else.
Amazing. Build up the military-industrial congressional complex,
neglect infrastructure like national parks, the public transportation
and communication grid, post office, emergency and disaster relief,
federal aid to schools, the advancement of science and the arts, and
other noble pursuits in this life?
I'd rather go visit Yellowstone next summer or have NASA put people on
Mars than see tanks rolling down my neighborhood street, barbed wire
around my community and bombers flying overhead.
You have a different set of expectations in this world?
>>I'm an avid camper and enjoy our national parks. I can't figure out why
>>virtually none of our parks have showers (like European hostels) and
>>most of them utilize structures built 50-70 years ago by the CCC. We
>>have the same neglect in almost every other non-military and non-pork
>>area of the federal budget.
>
>
> I am too. But it's wrong to use threats of violence to extort money
> from citizens to pay for your (and mine) warm showers.
But it's okay to use threats of violence to extort money (if this is how
you describe taxes) to build nuclear bombs?
Your train of reasoning is utterly astounding.
The nobler functions of government, public sector, and higher education
are to provide a safety net for its starving, the elderly, and helpless,
to guarantee a balance between freedom and responsibility (freedom "for"
and freedom "from") and to advance the arts and sciences in ways the
market has been unable to (for example, go to the moon, discover DNA,
quantum mechanics, train each generation of doctors, etc.)
In the end, the military state should be abolished as an artifact of a
primitive barbaric age as we become civil, dignified and encourage this
in other countries -- as opposed to encouraging armed resistance and
terrorism in response to oppressive policies.
Asmodeus
news:1ab0ed1b.04082...@posting.google.com:
> You're missing the point. The point is that the amount we get taxed is
> not connected to how we spend our money. Our taxes go into a general
> fund. Our taxes have gone down a tiny bit in the last few years (a
> good thing) but spending has gone way up (a bad thing). A lot of our
> taxes are hidden, like withholding and gas taxes
I'm not a liberal; I'm well aware of all that. And I'm also
aware that I'm paying for the war, just as aware as I am that
I have relatives and friends serving overseas.
CR
> > I would spend more than 50% on the military. That's one of the very
> > few legitimate functions of government. To protect our rights, not
> > infringe on them. Social spending only infringes on our rights. I
> > would, however, reduce the amount of military spending. But I would
> > eliminate just about everything else.
>
> Amazing. Build up the military-industrial congressional complex,
I didn't say build up the military. Please read what I wrote. I said I
would reduce the amount spent on the military. Plus if you read how I
started this thread it should be clear I am against pre-emptive wars.
> neglect infrastructure like national parks, the public transportation
> and communication grid, post office, emergency and disaster relief,
> federal aid to schools, the advancement of science and the arts, and
> other noble pursuits in this life?
Define noble.
> > I am too. But it's wrong to use threats of violence to extort money
> > from citizens to pay for your (and mine) warm showers.
>
> But it's okay to use threats of violence to extort money (if this is how
> you describe taxes) to build nuclear bombs?
Nope, that's wrong too. But at least the extorted money is used to
protect my freedom (at least in theory).
You seem like a peaceful person. I have a question for you. What would
you to someone who won't pay his taxes.
JethroUK©
if it's not that bad - why dont they just pay it back :o) must be 'that bad'
CR
> You seem like a peaceful person. I have a question for you. What would
> you to someone who won't pay his taxes.
That question always leaves liberals speechless.