Democrats to Bush: No more troops to Iraq

[Michaelangelica]

governments in general do not make money. to make it back is called raising taxes, which would effect the economy. this is a complicated formula however the end results of raising taxes has always hurt the over all economy and tax revenues...

it is probably only of interested to Australia but our defence budget is a few Billion bigger because of American wars. I think we are the only country who has just sent more troops to the illegal war in Iraq; while anyone with any sense, Japan and soon Britain- are getting out

Not much $ in the scheme of things but very significant for a country with a population of twenty million or so

These are the billion price tags I have left out the millions in small change.

Our Government (headed by Prime minister Bonsai (=small Bush))

is not putting up taxes just starving health, education, welfare and infrastructure

 

The Government will provide $389.4 million over three years to continue the Australian Defence Force's contribution to stabilisation efforts in Iraq as part of Operation CATALYST, including an additional 70 military personnel to be involved in logistics training for the Iraqi Army.

The Government will provide $703.0 million over four years (including $32.4 million in 2006-07) to increase Australia's military contribution to the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan.

 

 

 

The Government will provide $6.6 billion over 13 years (including $2.6 billion over nine years from 2011-12) to acquire 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, weapons and associated support, and to provide for personnel and operating costs to support the capability in service.

 

 

 

To improve the retention and recruitment of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel, the Government will provide $2.1 billion over 10 years (including $1.5 billion over six years from 2011-12). This funding will increase the number of people who join and remain in the military by:

 

 

The Government will provide $6.6 billion over 13 years (including $2.6 billion over nine years from 2011-12) to acquire 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, weapons and associated support, and to provide for personnel and operating costs to support the capability in service.

 

 

The Government will provide $1.4 billion over ten years (including $1.0 billion over six years from 2011-12) for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to maintain and operate four C-17 heavy airlift aircraft to significantly enhance ADF airlift capability.

 

 

The Government will provide $4.0 billion over ten years (including $2.2 billion over six years from 2011-12) to address logistics funding requirements across 18 high priority Defence platforms. This measure will alleviate a range of equipment obsolescence and inventory shortfall issues and enable enhanced maintenance, refits, and upgrades of equipment across the Army, Navy and Air Force.

 

 

This measure is in addition to previous logistics funding provided as part of the 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2006-07 Budgets. Provision for funding of $2.2 billion has already been included in the forward estimates.

 

 

Lots of more good stuff here

(I have only put down the billions not the millions

2007 Australian government Budget papers.

 

Defence

[jackson33]

MA; i am not privy to the thinking of Australian Government. i can only surmise they feel a problem exist and would rather try and solve it now. as stated, to do nothing, let ride will not solve the obvious problems in the world today. to wait and address later, would be much more costly for all the nations. this says nothing just what the next provocation might be or where.

 

you or any person is entitled to define *good or evil* to themselves. we are all results of parenting, education and a social structure. to radical Islam i am sure evil, is not chopping heads off your enemy, use of kids for defensive purposes or bombs, treating there women like dogs or educating the masses through religion that certain peoples are bad and should be killed. the very foundation for these ideas are very old, when a different world existed and no doubt all peoples felt as they still do....the point is good has taken on other meanings in societies that have gone beyond those times. good and evil by any definition to the extremes of today simply cannot exist together in a now, world community.

[Queso]

So it's "fine" in america to have 100,000$ debt?

 

:)

 

OK.

[Zythryn]

Orb, many people do. Ask anyone that has bought a house in the last five years:)

That being said, I think the analogy breaks down as the governments debt is not owned solely by our OWN government. Much of the debt is owned by China.

And any family would prefer to be debt free where our current administration seems to like being in debt.

I still think the most criminal thing is that politicians can add pork to spending bills and the person that added the pork is not clearly stated. I think they all should be tossed out on their A#@

[jackson33]

So it's "fine" in america to have 100,000$ debt?

 

:)

 

OK.

 

in the US, the average cost of a new home is 230k and not much less for a used one. 70+% of Americans own their own home.

 

based on the two person working family the average income around 80-90k, remembering entry level incomes are included.

 

basically this is my point, the US National Debt, based on the values of all property and its GDP, is not that heavy. the value of government property in Washington DC, is probably worth trillions alone and if need be there are buyers standing by to buy the rights alone to many other holdings for natural resources. there are simply to many ways the total debt could be eliminated in total, other than earning it back...

[TheFaithfulStone]

based on the two person working family the average income around 80-90k, remembering entry level incomes are included.

 

Your figure is about double what the actual average household income is.

 

I present you with a link!

 

TFS

[jackson33]

Your figure is about double what the actual average household income is.

 

I present you with a link!

 

TFS

 

there is probably no real figure available, however according to the Social Security site, the average wage earner pay in 2005 was 37,000 and i took it to what 07, should be or 41,000. i also assume most folks earn a few dollars from other investments, which are not subject to SS taxes.

 

the 2 wage earner family however is no long the majority of households as over 1/2 are single adult (think 05 was first year this happened) and a good many others have one wage earner only.

 

household and wage earners are different entities and my statement addressed 2 wage earners...which is correct.

[IMAMONKEY!]

Tell me, what would the implications be if we just bombed the hell out of suspected, insurgent, hiding places tomorrow? I've had so many peers tell me that's what they think we should do although I myself think that's a little... extreme. :Guns:

 

But is that a possible option? Is it ethical for that matter? If we can bomb only those that are causing problems and killing people all the time with suicide bombs, car bombs, etc. would that be worth it in the long run?

 

One big problem I see with it is innocents being killed. It's all a matter of morality and justification. Should we kill one terrorist and one innocent to save the future lives of tens or maybe even hundreds of innocents? :naughty: Can we accomplish such a feat?

 

It's a hard decision and no one on Capitol Hill seems willing to address it simply because they know opinions will always differ and the politicians are more interested in pleasing everyone and keeping their jobs rather than doing their jobs and solving the problem :) ... Morality is such a confusing subject and apparently a dilemna. :shrug:

 

Covering my @$$,

 

IMAMONKEY!

[Zythryn]

... Should we kill one terrorist and one innocent to save the future lives of tens or maybe even hundreds of innocents?...

The problem is it isn't that simple. Even if you could identify where all the terrorists are, by killing innocents you actually run the risk of CREATING more terrorists. So while you may remove one terrorist, you may create 3 more.

What we should do is get out of Iraq, move all our troops to Afghanastan and track down Bin Laden (wasn't that what the original idea was??)

[jackson33]

while i question the innocent factor (harboring or knowledge of) our purpose there is to allow time for a developing government. to fight the war against extremist groups should not be acting as the enemy itself or indiscriminate bombings.

 

as to producing new terrorist, we do not promote eternity for killing. we are the ultimate goal or guarantee for this motive as the infidal...

[CraigD]

based on the two person working family the average income around 80-90k, remembering entry level incomes are included.

Your figure is about double what the actual average household income is.

 

I present you with a link!

there is probably no real figure available, however according to the Social Security site, the average wage earner pay in 2005 was 37,000 and i took it to what 07, should be or 41,000.

Perhaps jackson33 is referring to a SSA-provided table such as ”Average wages, median wages, and wage dispersion”. A lot of accurate wage data is available from government providers via the internet, some of it digested and presented in discussions at hypography.

 

Note that for FY 2005, the (numeric) average individual net compensation was $35,448.93, while the median was $23,962.20. This indicates that rather than the numeric average being potentially deceptively low due to the inclusion of many “entry level incomes”, it is 48% higher than the median, due to a relatively small fraction of wage earners receiving much higher than average annual compensation.

 

To be very clear about the meaning of these terms and statistics, they indicate that, were we somehow to locate the US wage-earner who reported greater wages than almost exactly half of US wage-earners, and less than almost exactly half, his or her wages would be close to $23,962.20.

 

Assuming an increase in the median wage similar to those of recent decades, the 2007 median US annual compensation can be estimated to be between $25,000 and $26,000

i also assume most folks earn a few dollars from other investments, which are not subject to SS taxes.

I don’t know off-hand of a statistic supporting the assumption that most folk earn a significant amount of money from investments not reported as wages, tips, deferred compensation and the like. Were such data included in the previously cited data, I’m fairly certain it would result in much greater increase in the mean than the median, indicating that the greatest investment incomes are had by a relatively small fraction of the total population.

[jackson33]

the SS figures are based on wages earned. there figure was what i said. as i mentioned, household figures for a variety of reason differ; 2000 US Census indicates there were about 105.5 million households in 2000 and somehow give a 2004 median income of these at 44,334. they give a 2.5 person average in these households, but give no breakdown for working members or children. i can tell you the said average birth rate per couple is 2.1 which should result in a 4.1 figure if all couples. (in the US). my discussion was directed to the home buyers and general insignificance of an 8.8 trillion national debt. the US ranks 32nd on the list of GDP vs. debt, at about 65%. for comparison Japan ranks 2nd at about 130%. (to my knowledge they spend very little on defense). i won't bother you with the value of incidentals provided by all employers.

 

earned income is how SS taxes are based, to a certain point. however many investments off set earned income. tax free bonds, municipal and many investments are not taxable or used for earned income purpose. every one self employed is subject to 15.4% SS tax on this earned income, but can control the final figure from investments in their business. that is their net worth is increased but pay SS and income taxes on what was not reinvested.

if your doing real good, there are charitable trust and other ways to make money or provide for descendants or even their educations, when no taxes are ever paid...

[CraigD]

the SS figures are based on wages earned. there figure was what i said. as i mentioned, household figures for a variety of reason differ; 2000 US Census indicates there were about 105.5 million households in 2000 and somehow give a 2004 median income of these at 44,334. …

:QuestionM Jackson, what are the sources (urls) of these data you are providing?

 

From this US Census page, which TheFaithfulStone gave, we have

Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318

From this SSA page, which I gave, we have that the individual net compensation average and median were $30,846.09 and $20,957.18 in 2000, $35,448.93 and $23,962.20 in 2005.

 

From you posts, we have

based on the two person working family the average income around 80-90k, remembering entry level incomes are included.

there is probably no real figure available, however according to the Social Security site, the average wage earner pay in 2005 was 37,000 and i took it to what 07, should be or 41,000.

Before meaningful discussion of these statistics can occur, their sources must be known, and the discrepancy between our values resolved.:eek_big:

basically this is my point, the US National Debt, based on the values of all property and its GDP, is not that heavy.

I agree – though I think property value and GDP are applicable only indirectly to the debt.

 

The national debt is owed by the US Government. It’s currently about $8,800,000,000,000 (8.8 trillion – source U.S. National Debt Clock). In 2006, the US Governments annual “income” – its total receipts, which are primarily due to taxes – was about $2,178,000,000,000 (2.2 trillion). In 2006, it paid about $400,000,000,000 (400 billion) in “interest” – much of which are payments to people who have invested in instruments such as US treasury bonds (source Budget of the United States Government, FY 2006). By comparison, the total budget for the US Departments of Defense and Homeland security in 2006 was about $451,000,000,000 (451 billion).

 

So the US government owes debts equal to about 4 times its income. Equating this ratio to a “typical” family, gives $176,000 of mortgage and other dept vs. $44,000/year income, with a combined annual interest rate 4.55% - not financially unhealthy (especially that APR, which most US mortgage-owers would envy).

 

I suspect that many US taxpayers are irked by the national debt because they did not explicitly consent to it. Having debt and paying interest to a lender – typically to people who have money, which they don’t - is something in which many Americans willingly engage. Having that money paid on their behalf by their government, in many cases to the same people, is for many Americans, less agreeable – especially when they consider the portion of the debt owned to foreign individuals and governments.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Gaaah.

 

There is a real figure available. I gave it to you. Median and average are not the same thing. Median is normally lower because the income curve is not normally distributed (it's skewed left.)

 

TFS

[jackson33]

Craig & TFS; the mentioned figures on households and 2004 mean incomes (opposed to 2003) are listed at *quickfacts.census.gov*, which i find easily on many google searches. in the US, when speaking in averages you have to remember it can vary to extremes, with each state, even cities are very complex and different than the next. where i live i could buy a four bedroom, three bath, brick home on a large lot and new for 200k. in LA or NYC, the same item could cost several million if even available. taxes, wages, even family make up are as different as that home.

 

GDP vs. debt, means little w/o an understanding of what the disposable incomes of the population is after taxes, when comparisons to are made.

 

the US ranks 42nd on per capita tax @ 8,071. the UK 22nd @ 16,053 and Denmark #2 @ 42,465. if you believe *nationmaster.com*. this site has 46k for US household and the UK at 39, and Denmark was not listed. i couldn't prove much with this since i have a good idea what state, sales, gas and property taxes are per state (not included) and no idea what other the others are reflecting. however no state, collects tax for any war effort and the point of this discussion.

 

as for the American attitude on National Debt. most do think its a large figure and the way its addressed by media and politicians probably have no idea what to compare it to, other than their income. in Japan, where this debt is more than their total GDP it must be terrifying. by various means i have indicated how little in reality it is and how simple it would be to simply pay off even with the unfortunate results, BUT it could be done.

 

IMO; the debt also reflects much of what was never intended by our constitution to be the Feds, responsibility. welfare or social obligation are becoming alarmingly out of hand in growth making the real obligation a questionable feat in the near future.

 

15.4 SS with limits plus Medicaid think 4% of all income received, does not count as government income, but has been placed in the general fund and spent. Gas/Diesel taxes are collected for one purpose and not counted. i would think if the total dollars sent to Washington DC was known, the total would dwarf the figures used for budget purposes. this is the way i understand it, and as said IMO...

[TheBigDog]

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine makes a compelling argument for establishing a national debt for the purpose of defense.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine makes a compelling argument for establishing a national debt for the purpose of defense.

I think this is a bit of a distortion. In ”Common Sense”, Paine argued, ten month after the beginning of open war between England and the American Colonies on 4/19/1775, and five before the formal Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress on 7/4/1776, that, after the successful revolution, America should not rely on the protection of the English navy, but have its own, even if in so doing, its government incurred debt. He was very explicit in stating that such a dept could be “sunk” throught the sale of land, which, after the successful revolution, would be the property of the states, not foreign governments.

 

He and others were persuasive: ten years later, when the US Constitution was written, Congress was explicitly empowered to provide and maintain a navy, and to borrow money for any reason. Congress’s power to raise and support armies is more limited by the Constitution, requiring that “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years”.

 

Congress’s power to incur debt is not limited, nor restricted to particular purposes.

 

Despite the popular opinion that the Constitution prohibits Congress from maintain a standing army, much 18th and 19th century commentary opposing it, and many reasonable arguments that the intent of its authors was for the states to not have them, IMHO the Constitution as it now stands amended has no such prohibition. However, Congress’s power to “call forth the militia” – in modern terms, to use the army – is explicitly given only “to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”.

 

So, by a strict reading of the Constitution, Congress exceeded its legally granted power in raising an army to fight in Europe and other non-US soil in WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and, at present, Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

IMHO, the 20th century has not been a good one for adherence to the rule of law by the US government. The 21st is not looking any better.