View Full Version : U.S. Embassy Report on Iraq -- Not So Upbeat
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601768.html) got their dirty hands on a "sensitive" report from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. You can read the full report here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf).
It's a grim read. Comments, thoughts?
Hours before President Bush left on a surprise trip last Monday to the Green Zone in Baghdad for an upbeat assessment of the situation there, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq painted a starkly different portrait of increasing danger and hardship faced by its Iraqi employees. This cable, marked "sensitive" and obtained by The Washington Post, outlines in spare prose the daily-worsening conditions for those who live outside the heavily guarded international zone: harassment, threats and the employees' constant fears that their neighbors will discover they work for the U.S. government.
Hurin_Rules
06-19-2006, 17:12
Why do you hate freedom?
rory_20_uk
06-19-2006, 17:21
You know repeating Terrorist Propaganda is (probably by now) a criminal offence.
Blast by blast, the number of Iraqis complaining about conditions is decreasing in Iraq. surely that counts for something??!?
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
06-19-2006, 18:09
You know repeating Terrorist Propaganda is (probably by now) a criminal offence.
Blast by blast, the number of Iraqis complaining about conditions is decreasing in Iraq. surely that counts for something??!?
~:smoking:
I think it does, Rory, but the USA has somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the populace who believe any war is wrong --there version of a "just" war includes the direct defense of New Jersey and little else. This group revels in any information that suggests our failure in Iraq, since they hope to sway enough public opinion over to their view so as to have us cut and run. They take this stance on any and all military efforts overseas lasting longer than one missile salvo -- and would protest those if they had time to get a parade together. It is not "progressive" to remember that history's lessons include the all-too-frequent need to pay in blood to enact political policy.
rory_20_uk
06-19-2006, 18:33
Democracies are very bad at aggressive wars. Hence the way this one was initially dressed up as defensive (rather like NATO in Afghanistan, I guess).
Foreign policy doesn't excuse lying about how things are going, or how things are planned to go.
So far, the concept of the war was a fiasco, the planning was dire and yes people are dying because of that. I personally think that failing to invade in 1991 was the biggest chance missed.
The topic isn't concerning whether the USA should stay or flee, and nor should a report stating that things are getting worse be the cause of this.
But if fighting a war relies on lying to the locals, the world and even the people in America then this needs to be reconsidered.
If for example Americans are generally cowards then so be it. Fight no wars that take longer than a week. Fight through third parties and mercenaries. But know thyself and don't try to lie to thyself.
Bush is there by the people for the people.
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
06-19-2006, 19:19
But know thyself and don't try to lie to thyself.
Excellent advice, Rory, but as a medical professional -- and well aware of just how many 12-step groups are out there -- you know that these two tasks are the most difficult ones we all face as individuals.
rory_20_uk
06-19-2006, 20:24
The same shouldn't be the case in governments where there are many staff and there should be a long time for people to mature. A system where all senior posts are chosen by the new President of course can undermine this pretty effectively.
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
06-19-2006, 21:28
The same shouldn't be the case in governments where there are many staff and there should be a long time for people to mature. A system where all senior posts are chosen by the new President of course can undermine this pretty effectively.
~:smoking:
True, patronage in any form has its flaws, but long-term government employees are also, almost without exception, thoroughly bureacratized. So, even in the best cases, some of what Hannah Arendt called "structural violence" is going to be occurring, limiting the responsiveness and flexibility of long-term government leaders.
On the whole, I'd be a bit happier if cabinet appointees were selected for their skills and experience more than their political fitness, but there is too much Harriet Myers going on.
I guess the lemur's thinking is simple (and possibly simplistic): If we're to succeed in Iraq, we have to be honest with ourselves about what we're doing, where we are, and how far we have to go. Optimism is important, but denials of reality are not optimistic -- they're delusional.
I wish President Bush had made a "blood, sweat and tears" speech about Iraq. I wish he would stop selling sugar and lay it on the line. Admit how hard it's going to be. Ask for sacrifice from the Amerian people, and not just from the frontline soldiers.
But that would require convictions and political courage. Haven't seen those items around in a while.
I would much rather get an unvarnished report than listen to the sugar-plum fantasies coming out of the White House.
rory_20_uk
06-19-2006, 21:35
Hardly the same situation, but Churchill was another to say things are going to get a hell of a lot worse before they get better.
People generally after the dismay has warn off appreciate this approach as there are no nasty let downs later on.
~:smoking:
Avicenna
06-19-2006, 21:45
Well, considering that Churchill was appointed during war and not re-elected after it (at least not straight after it), it's hard to see why politicians don't want to learn from Churchill.
rory_20_uk
06-19-2006, 21:47
I guess it depends what the politicians are in it for: themselves or their country.
~:smoking:
Avicenna
06-19-2006, 21:48
Pretty obvious which one most of them value.
What if Bush had said this is going to be a long war with substantial casualties on both sides at great cost to the USA and the Iraqi people but for a greater good in long run for the US, Iraq and the middle east in general, additionally there are believed to be WMDs in the region (and that whole WMD speil but who knows what what was lies and what was honestly bad information?)
I myself wouldn't be as disgusted with the carrying out of the war and I think would still have supported it back then seeing as the orignial reason I supproted it was to put pressure on Iran and Syria although that's not feasible anymore.
Would you have preferred this opposed to the they'll greet us with flowers and candy as liberators and the oil of Iraq willl cover the cost of the war? and more importantly blunt truth war have affected your opinon.
Ask for sacrifice from the Amerian people, and not just from the frontline soldiers.Sacrifice what exactly? I hear this often enough- but you seldom get any specifics. Outside of volunteering for military service, what sacrifice do you think civillians should be making that would help the war effort?
Old ways are the best ways ...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/poster-war-bonds.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/buywarbonds.jpg
For those who can't be bothered to read the full PDF, the BBC did a decent job (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5098896.stm) of condensing down the salient bits.
US memo reveals Iraqis' grim life
A leaked memo from the US embassy in Baghdad paints a grim picture of the daily lives of Iraqi employees, saying the strains could affect their work.
The cable says staff live in fear other Iraqis will find out who they work for, and are affected by sectarian tensions.
Although employees remain professional "strains are apparent", it notes.
The memo was printed by the Washington Post newspaper, which says it contrasts with the administration's upbeat assessment of the situation in Iraq.
The document was signed by US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and sent to the State Department in Washington on 6 June.
"Employees all share a common tale: of nine employees in March, only four had family members who knew they worked at the embassy," it says.
Secrets and lies
The memo adds: "We cannot call employees in on weekends or holidays without blowing their 'cover'.
"A Sunni Arab female employee tells us family pressures and the inability to share details of her employment is very tough; she told her family she was in Jordan when we sent her on training to the US."
The cable also notes a change in the behaviour of guards at checkpoints around Baghdad's Green Zone, the fortified area where embassies and many government buildings are located.
In recent months the guards seem to have become "militia-like", the memo says, and in some cases "taunting".
"One employee asked us to get her some press credentials because the guards held her embassy badge up and proclaimed loudly to passers-by 'Embassy' as she entered.
"Such information is a death sentence if heard by the wrong people."
Emotional drain
The embassy has been shredding documents that show the surnames of local staff, the memo reveals.
It also says ethnic and sectarian tensions affecting Iraqi employees and their families.
A Sunni female is said to have insulted a Shia colleague over her "overly liberal" dress", it says.
"Another employee tells us that life outside the Green Zone has become 'emotionally draining'."
The memo speaks of rigid dress codes being enforced by neighbourhood vigilantes, as well as power cuts, fuel shortages, and fear of attacks and abductions.
It concludes: "Although our staff retain a professional demeanour, strains are apparent...
"Employees are apprehensive enough that we fear they may exaggerate developments or steer us towards news that comports with their own world view."
President George W Bush gave a positive assessment of developments during a surprise visit to Baghdad last week.
"I was inspired to be able to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq," he said.
So you think buying war bonds would be an appropriate sacrifice and that they'd help the war effort in Iraq?
discovery1
06-21-2006, 03:32
So you think buying war bonds would be an appropriate sacrifice and that they'd help the war effort in Iraq?
Surely it beats a tax increase?
And that's the essence of the problem. Tax cuts in the middle of wartime are insane. Funding a war entirely on debt when it is not strictly necessary to do so is insane. I believe this fiscal nonsense was propogated for purely political reasons, i.e., we don't want to upset the voters by asking them to actually pay for the war. Let's just shove that off on future generations.
Irresponsible and infantile.
The War Bonds images were meant to be humorous, Xiahou. Sorry I failed so thoroughly at making a joke that you took me at face value.
And that's the essence of the problem. Tax cuts in the middle of wartime are insane. Funding a war entirely on debt when it is not strictly necessary to do so is insane. I believe this fiscal nonsense was propogated for purely political reasons, i.e., we don't want to upset the voters by asking them to actually pay for the war. Let's just shove that off on future generations.
Irresponsible and infantile.
The War Bonds images were meant to be humorous, Xiahou. Sorry I failed so thoroughly at making a joke that you took me at face value.
I would be interested in your serious answer to his question then since your first was a joke. You said the President should ask Americans to make sacrifice aside from joining the military, he asked you what sort of sacrifice(s). I am interested in hearing your answers.
solypsist
06-21-2006, 03:52
rationing gasoline would be a start.
Sacrifice what exactly? I hear this often enough- but you seldom get any specifics. Outside of volunteering for military service, what sacrifice do you think civillians should be making that would help the war effort?
rationing gasoline would be a start.
Wouldn't opec just raise prices further to make up for any lost revenue?
solypsist
06-21-2006, 04:02
the primary reason would be to remind u.s. citizens that there is war going on. right now americans are completely unaffected by anything and everything that's going on in the middle east, and will continue to be largely indifferent so long as there are no inconveniences. military blunders and setbacks? who cares as long as i can make my sunday leisure drive! but there would definitely be a drive to win or at least reach a conclusion more effectively if people had to "suffer" the term, too.
the american people are not for this war (iraq) but nor are they against it either; not as totally as they could or should be. right now the iraq war is nothing more than a television hobby for americans. imagine if gas had been rationed at the onset of the iraq invasion: do you think the current prevailaing attitude three years later would be identical to the lackadaisical rhetoric (from all sides) we have today?
Wouldn't opec just raise prices further to make up for any lost revenue?
scooter_the_shooter
06-21-2006, 04:32
the primary reason would be to remind u.s. citizens that there is war going on. right now americans are completely unaffected by anything and everything that's going on in the middle east, and will continue to be largely indifferent so long as there are no inconveniences. military blunders and setbacks? who cares as long as i can make my sunday leisure drive! but there would definitely be a drive to win or at least reach a conclusion more effectively if people had to "suffer" the term, too.
the american people are not for this war (iraq) but nor are they against it either; not as totally as they could or should be. right now the iraq war is nothing more than a television hobby for americans. imagine if gas had been rationed at the onset of the iraq invasion: do you think the current prevailaing attitude three years later would be indentical to the lackadaisical rhetoric (from all sides) we have today?
....I agree with soly! (for once)
He's right, I was talking to some college kid and he didn't know we were at war in iraq (this was 6 months into the iraq war) the response "oh my god were at war, when are they coming!" (he thought we were being invaded:laugh4: ) He also thought we were out of afghanistan.
Americans just don't seem to care anymore, why I do not know, but the attitude has to change or we won't be great anymore. We need to take the kid gloves off....
Do you think any major wars are won with out beating some info out of the enemy? (people claim this will take away all america use to stand for...yeah right do you think we played nice during the revolution, or ww2)
Do you think any major wars were won when the public didn't care? (we need to make them care, take something away)
Do you think you can win a war. When the people think
"our guys will get em" No one seems to realize that we need soldiers to win wars! Even frothing at the mouth supporters of the war won't join the military (and yes I do intend to join, mainly to carry on the family tradition though)
(I gotta take a break for a few days, some recent events have turned me more bitter and cynical than I can ever remember)
And that's the essence of the problem. Tax cuts in the middle of wartime are insane. Funding a war entirely on debt when it is not strictly necessary to do so is insane. I believe this fiscal nonsense was propogated for purely political reasons, i.e., we don't want to upset the voters by asking them to actually pay for the war. Let's just shove that off on future generations.
Irresponsible and infantile.After the tax cuts, federal revenues have grown and the economy has expanded strongly. Its just foolish to think that raising taxes would automatically result in more federal revenue. The problem has been frivilous spending, not lower taxes.
The War Bonds images were meant to be humorous, Xiahou. Sorry I failed so thoroughly at making a joke that you took me at face value.
No, the mistake was mine for expecting a serious answer from you.
the primary reason would be to remind u.s. citizens that there is war going on. right now americans are completely unaffected by anything and everything that's going on in the middle east, and will continue to be largely indifferent so long as there are no inconveniences. military blunders and setbacks? who cares as long as i can make my sunday leisure drive! but there would definitely be a drive to win or at least reach a conclusion more effectively if people had to "suffer" the term, too.
the american people are not for this war (iraq) but nor are they against it either; not as totally as they could or should be. right now the iraq war is nothing more than a television hobby for americans. imagine if gas had been rationed at the onset of the iraq invasion: do you think the current prevailaing attitude three years later would be identical to the lackadaisical rhetoric (from all sides) we have today?So why ration gasoline? Why not just have everyone line up for lashings every Sunday- Im sure that'd remind them. :rolleyes:
Honestly, rationing gasoline for no reason? That's ridiculous.
Samurai Waki
06-21-2006, 07:19
If Every Vehicle Owning American drove 3 less miles in a single day, the Oil Market would crash, and be in a major depression for years to come.
Just an FYI
Hurin_Rules
06-21-2006, 08:09
After the tax cuts, federal revenues have grown and the economy has expanded strongly. Its just foolish to think that raising taxes would automatically result in more federal revenue. The problem has been frivilous spending, not lower taxes.
Ah, more voodoo economics. Takes me back to the days of Ol' Ronny Reagan. But I guess I'm dating myself.
To make such a contentious argument, you'll have to provide some proof of the following (if you are implying a causal link between tax cuts and expanding goverment revenue):
1. That tax revenues have grown as a direct result of the tax cuts, and not just natural economic cycles.
2. That the growth in tax revenues has been enough to counterbalance the trillions of dollars the government has lost in revenue through the tax cuts themselves.
I doubt you will be able to prove either.
Papewaio
06-21-2006, 08:22
If Every Vehicle Owning American drove 3 less miles in a single day, the Oil Market would crash, and be in a major depression for years to come.
Just an FYI
It wouldn't crash, prices have doubled in the last couple of years, oil companies are making record profits as prices soar. If you dropped 3 less miles in a single day it would amount to far less then 1% (1/365 * 3/total mileage) of the total revenue of the oil companies.
For instance from :BBC on the 28th of April (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4492361.stm)
Shellhas reported a 28% increase in first quarter profit thanks to surging oil prices
...
Meanwhile, oil firm Exxon Mobil posted first quarter net profits of $7.86bn.
Exxon Mobil said strong oil prices helped pump profits up 44%, against the same period last year. Sales revenues rose 21% to $82.05bn.
CNN money on the 30th of Jan '06 (http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earns/)
The nation's largest oil company reported net income in the fourth quarter of $10.7 billion, or $1.71 a share, compared to $8.4 billion, or $1.30 a share, a year earlier.
For the year the company earned net income of $36.1 billion, or $33.9 billion excluding special items. That's up 31 percent from the $25.9 billion it earned on that basis year earlier.
Exxon Mobil's 2005 net income for the year comes to $1,146 a second. That per-second profit is enough to pay for gas for the average American vehicle to be driven 10,294 miles, at current gasoline prices.
While oil and gasoline prices in the fourth quarter were down from the levels seen in September, that barely dented Exxon Mobil's top line. Revenue for the quarter was $99.7 billion, up from $81.9 billion in the year-earlier quarter, and down only 1 percent from the $100.7 billion in revenue in the third quarter. Full-year revenue came to $371 billion, or just over $1 billion a day.
...
Of course Exxon Mobil isn't the only oil company reporting sharply better results. The 12 U.S. oil companies in the S&P 500 that have reported fourth-quarter results have seen an average of a 48 percent rise in earnings excluding items in the period, according to First Call.
The list includes most of the large U.S. oil companies, including No. 2 Chevron and No. 3 ConocoPhillips (Research). But it does not include major foreign-based oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell (Research) or BP (Research), which both have extensive U.S. operations.
The oil companies in the S&P are expected to see full-year earnings of $96.5 billion, when combining reported results and forecasts for the companies yet to report. That also would be up 48 percent from a year ago. And the profit growth is not nearing an end, with analysts surveyed by First Call looking for 15 percent growth in earnings at those companies in 2006.
So a loss of a days earnings would be a billion dollars... so profits might drop at most the same amount... to 35.1 billion. Everyone, everywhere would have to stop driving for over a month to possibly wipe out profits.
Ah, more voodoo economics. Takes me back to the days of Ol' Ronny Reagan. But I guess I'm dating myself.
To make such a contentious argument, you'll have to provide some proof of the following (if you are implying a causal link between tax cuts and expanding goverment revenue):
1. That tax revenues have grown as a direct result of the tax cuts, and not just natural economic cycles.
2. That the growth in tax revenues has been enough to counterbalance the trillions of dollars the government has lost in revenue through the tax cuts themselves.
I doubt you will be able to prove either.
1. Ill have to remember that one next time global warming comes up.:wink: Seriously though, I can't believe you dont see that tax cuts can spur economic growth. Here's (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060619) a story from IBD that outlines the difference in US tax policies vs other countries- pay particular attention to the pretty chart.
Right now, conditions are very positive. But data show the world is already overtaxed. As a matter of efficiency, countries perform best when government's tax take is relatively small — about 20% of GDP. Above that level, economies start to suffer. Repeated studies bear this out.
Perhaps the most famous, by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, found that high rates of taxation cost countries more than $1 in output for each dollar of added taxes imposed. Likewise, World Bank studies of dozens of economies going all the way back to 1983 find pretty much the same thing.
In Europe, the average tax take as a share of GDP — the most transparent measure of taxation — is 39.3%. That's down from 41.7% in 2000. The U.S., by comparison, was at 25.4% of GDP in 2005. But following recent tax hikes in Germany and Britain that have yet to be fully felt, the EU's rates might soon rise.
Moreover, the gap between European rates and U.S. rates is widening. This in large part explains the disparity in economic performance (see chart).
2. This one is easy- as Ive said, the government is now taking in more revenue than it did pre-cuts. If the revenue growth didnt offset the losses from the tax cuts, revenue wouldnt have grown would it?- it wouldve shrunk. :dizzy2:
I would be interested in your serious answer to his question then since your first was a joke. You said the President should ask Americans to make sacrifice aside from joining the military, he asked you what sort of sacrifice(s). I am interested in hearing your answers.
Joker, I gave a serious answer after Xiahou took the War Bonds seriously:
Tax cuts in the middle of wartime are insane. Funding a war entirely on debt when it is not strictly necessary to do so is insane. I believe this fiscal nonsense was propogated for purely political reasons, i.e., we don't want to upset the voters by asking them to actually pay for the war. Let's just shove that off on future generations.
No, the mistake was mine for expecting a serious answer from you.
Sometimes lemurs are serious, and just as often they're silly; both states can be enjoyable. Didn't mean to make you grumpy.
Joker, Xiahou, is there anything else in this topic you'd care to comment on? Or is this entire thread going to be about "what exactly do we mean by ask for sacrifice"? Do you have any thoughts on the embassy report? On conditions for Iraqi workers who commute to the Green Zone? Do you believe the President's pitch is correct or flawed?
Tribesman
06-21-2006, 18:18
So why ration gasoline? Why not just have everyone line up for lashings every Sunday- Im sure that'd remind them.
Oh dear , more mindless crap , or could you tell me how the war has affected prices at the local S&M club ?
Then again perhaps the few rogue elements from the nightshift have pushed up demand on their return , you know you must follow market values , supply and demand , pehaps you could import some Iraqis who developed a love for being abused :idea2: , that might stabilise the market .
Joker, Xiahou, is there anything else in this topic you'd care to comment on? Or is this entire thread going to be about "what exactly do we mean by ask for sacrifice"? Do you have any thoughts on the embassy report? On conditions for Iraqi workers who commute to the Green Zone? Do you believe the President's pitch is correct or flawed?
The lack of a call for sacrifice from the president was listed as one of your biggest complaints about the administration not being honest and putting forth "delusional" "sugar-plum fantasies". I just wanted to know if you had anything specific or realistic in mind or were just repeating the all-too-common talking points.
As to your original post, of course things are difficult in Iraq. What are these delusional fantasies that you think you keep hearing?
What are these delusional fantasies that you think you keep hearing?
Good lord, so I'm supposed to list a bunch of quotes, starting with Cheney's "last throes" and leading up to the mantra of "progress" coming from the White House, and then you're going to deconstruct each example and explain how they're not unrealistic and I'm biased, or perhaps too dim to understand their cryptic import?
Pardon me if I don't play. If you don't see a disconnect between the Admin.'s rhetoric over the last three years and observable reality, I don't have the energy to get into a lengthy back-and-forth about it. Too little common ground, and you sound as though you're in a mood to contest everything.
As to your original post, of course things are difficult in Iraq.
LOL! And here I thought you were going to adopt a dour tone. Very funny, very dry.
Hurin_Rules
06-21-2006, 21:18
1. Ill have to remember that one next time global warming comes up.:wink: Seriously though, I can't believe you dont see that tax cuts can spur economic growth. Here's (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060619) a story from IBD that outlines the difference in US tax policies vs other countries- pay particular attention to the pretty chart.
2. This one is easy- as Ive said, the government is now taking in more revenue than it did pre-cuts. If the revenue growth didnt offset the losses from the tax cuts, revenue wouldnt have grown would it?- it wouldve shrunk. :dizzy2:
Neither arguments prove what you want them to prove, because you've taken as your baseline the year 2000. That's like trying to argue the Nazis helped the American economy in the 1930s because they got into power then, and the American economy gradually improved. If your baseline is the great depression, ANYTHING is going to look like an increase. How about if we extend the analysis to 1992? What do things look like then?
I'm not arguing tax cuts are bad, or that they can't help the economy. But they are not the panacea for all economic problems some conservatives think they are. Hence, misleading studies that take the year 2000--the bottoming out of the economy and the bursting of the tech bubble--as the beginning of their analyses. Moreover, the US went from record budget surpluses to record deficits in less than 4 years. Are you saying this is all due to increased spending? That trillions of dollars of tax cuts benefitting mostly the top 1% of the population, had nothing to do with it?
Watchman
06-21-2006, 21:52
Here's (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060619) a story from IBD that outlines the difference in US tax policies vs other countries- pay particular attention to the pretty chart.(emphasis added)
May I point at my sig for another "pretty chart" ? I consider it a good reductio ad absurdum of how you can use pretty charts to prove connections between virtually anything...
Yar.
Neither arguments prove what you want them to prove, because you've taken as your baseline the year 2000. That's like trying to argue the Nazis helped the American economy in the 1930s because they got into power then, and the American economy gradually improved. If your baseline is the great depression, ANYTHING is going to look like an increase. How about if we extend the analysis to 1992? What do things look like then?Both the real and nominal GDPs are substantially higher then 1992....what are you trying to get at? The point of the article was basically this:
Moreover, the gap between European rates and U.S. rates is widening. This in large part explains the disparity in economic performance (see chart).The US economy's growth, with much lower taxes, is outstripping that of the EU- which has a much higher tax rate.
I'm not arguing tax cuts are bad, or that they can't help the economy.No, you're just arguing that they were bad in this case and that they didnt help the economy- despite strong economic growth that has occurred since then. :dizzy2:
But they are not the panacea for all economic problems some conservatives think they are.I don't think they are either, although I am generally in favor of being able to keep more of my own money. :wink: But, there is some point where a cut in tax rates will not stimulate the economy enough to generate revenues greater than what is lost. However, this was not that point.
Hence, misleading studies that take the year 2000--the bottoming out of the economy and the bursting of the tech bubble--as the beginning of their analyses.Let me refer to the article once more.
Perhaps the most famous, by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, found that high rates of taxation cost countries more than $1 in output for each dollar of added taxes imposed. Likewise, World Bank studies of dozens of economies going all the way back to 1983 find pretty much the same thing.
Before we get bogged down in minutia let's keep in mind the original claim I was responding to that "cutting taxes in wartime is insanity". Since these tax cuts, we've experienced strong economic growth and sharp increases in federal revenue... how is that insane?
Watchman
06-22-2006, 00:44
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you also have a really mind-boggling foreign debt...?
Nevermind now that this affluence you speak of appears AFAIK to be rather unevenly distributed.
Hurin_Rules
06-22-2006, 02:05
Also, the massive budget surpluses have turned to massive budget deficits while the tax cuts were being enacted and taking effect. How exactly do you explain that? We're not talking a few hundred billions here--the cost of the war on terror--we're talking about a few hundred billions EVERY YEAR-- that is how much the US is now going into debt, from a period of surpluses.
Also, the massive budget surpluses have turned to massive budget deficits while the tax cuts were being enacted and taking effect. How exactly do you explain that? We're not talking a few hundred billions here--the cost of the war on terror--we're talking about a few hundred billions EVERY YEAR-- that is how much the US is now going into debt, from a period of surpluses.
I believe you'd find revenues were falling even before the tax cuts due to a weakening economy. Also, and this should be obvious, a tax cut will not generate an immediate revenue increase- there is a lag before the economic expansion generates revenue to offset the cuts.
The real problem is runaway discretionary spending (pork) and new entitlements. Over the last few decades federal revenue has roughly tripled- however, spending has qudarupled during the same time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you also have a really mind-boggling foreign debt...?.We have alot of debt to be sure, but let's keep some perspective while we're piling on US financial policy. Our total debt as a percentage of GDP is not so different than that of some of our European counterparts.
Ironside
06-22-2006, 09:42
As this thread now seems to be a focus on the US debt and tax cuts, I'm curious if anyone got a good link on how much influence the money that gets injected into the system by going debt has.
I mean unless I'm missing something, this years debt will be about 20% of the total GNP. :dizzy2:
It has to affect the total GNP in some way.
Watchman
06-22-2006, 10:13
We have alot of debt to be sure, but let's keep some perspective while we're piling on US financial policy. Our total debt as a percentage of GDP is not so different than that of some of our European counterparts.I'm guessing the emphasis is on "some". Which would presumably be the ones in direr financial straits.
And wasn't the American system, at least according to what I've taken your position to be, supposed to do better than that...? :inquisitive:
As this thread now seems to be a focus on the US debt and tax cuts, I'm curious if anyone got a good link on how much influence the money that gets injected into the system by going debt has.
I mean unless I'm missing something, this years debt will be about 20% of the total GNP. :dizzy2:
It has to affect the total GNP in some way.
Some information is available at this site
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
This one from the above mentioned site - might provide the information you asked about
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm
Ironside
06-22-2006, 20:25
Some information is available at this site
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
This one from the above mentioned site - might provide the information you asked about
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm
Thanks for the links. Although it didn't contain what I was looking for, the only thing I found yet was on wiki about GDP (appearently GNP is an old name) mentioning, among the critizisms against GDP, that GDP is getting higher when going into debt and lower if the state is investing thier budget surplus outside the country.
It did contain this pearl though: :2thumbsup:
4.2) How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Please follow these important steps to make a contribution to reduce the debt.
1. Make check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt.
2. In the memo section of the check, notate Gift to reduce Debt Held by the Public.
3. Mail check to -
ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188
Seems that they'll get about 1,5 millions this fiscal year in this way. ~;p
It did contain this pearl though: :2thumbsup:
4.2) How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Please follow these important steps to make a contribution to reduce the debt.
1. Make check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt.
2. In the memo section of the check, notate Gift to reduce Debt Held by the Public.
3. Mail check to -
ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188
Seems that they'll get about 1,5 millions this fiscal year in this way. ~;p
Wow, that's idiotic. :laugh4:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.