Where the "deficits do not matter" mentality came. RR

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Which one?

As Texas Contrarian said, you keep whiplashing from one topic to another so often we all need to wear neck braces!

It’s sad and pathetic watching him spiral into total lunacy over the years. But hey, he’s still at it. Somebody lets him play with an IPad I guess.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

That’s malarkey that wars and foreign policy benefit the rich.

You don't think Dick Cheney's Halliburton benefited from the invasion of Iraq by Bush43?

From the link:

Halliburton has become the object of several controversies involving the Iraq War and the company's ties to former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[52] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[53] Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[54]

In the run-up to the Iraq War, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which only Halliburton was allowed to bid.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

[bambino]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You don't think Dick Cheney's Halliburton benefited from the invasion of Iraq by Bush43?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

You’re onto something for once. Funny how Liz Cheney is worth 40 million dollars. And she and her daddy want to take down Trump. He’s going to expose them.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

I see Professor Poofter hasn’t got any smarted in 3 months!!!!

Originally Posted by bambino

You just called yourself one. Nobody called you that. But thanks for clearing things up.

Actually I translated what you were slyly trying to do...

poofter
(pʊftəʳ IPA Pronunciation Guide)
Word forms: plural poofters
COUNTABLE NOUN
Poofter is an insulting word for a gay man.
[British, informal, offensive]

Now please, enough with the insults and try and stay on topic

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

Actually I translated what you were slyly trying to do...

poofter
(pʊftəʳ IPA Pronunciation Guide)
Word forms: plural poofters
COUNTABLE NOUN
Poofter is an insulting word for a gay man.
[British, informal, offensive]

Now please, enough with the insults and try and stay on topic

You’re totally gone. No hope. You can post all the public RTMs you want. It’s pathetic. BTW, I have 6pts. Keep trying.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by bambino

You’re onto something for once. Funny how Liz Cheney is worth 40 million dollars. And she and her daddy want to take down Trump. He’s going to expose them.

The 40 million is 4 million more than the 36 million severance Dick Cheney got from Haliburton when he retired to join up with Bush43.

[biomed1]

Of the Following . . .

• #1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others. No place for it here. Yes, with the dynamic nature of the threads and topics, tempers will flare and things will become heated from time to time. You may often encounter individuals who become passionate or emotional when expressing one's opinion or point of view. That's all understood and perfectly acceptable within reason…….but, start slamming or bashing another member and be met with consequences.
• #4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.
• #6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.
• #27 - Often times in online communities, members may display a tendency towards bringing their conflicts with other members to the board. This will be strongly discouraged and swift effort will be made to put it to rest. Additionally, staff will make every effort to stay uninvolved in conflicts and disputes between members off the board except in such cases where the board becomes directly affected.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You don't think Dick Cheney's Halliburton benefited from the invasion of Iraq by Bush43?

From the link:

Halliburton has become the object of several controversies involving the Iraq War and the company's ties to former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[52] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[53] Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[54]

In the run-up to the Iraq War, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which only Halliburton was allowed to bid.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

So the reason the U.S. got into the Iraq war was so Halliburton could make money? I'd put that in the same category as "there's an engine that gets 1000 miles to the gallon but the the oil companies bought the patent so it will never see the light of day." Or, "The COVID vaccine will end up killing most of the people who get it."

That is, it's a really stupid conspiracy theory.

And I was no fan of the Iraq war or the neocons like Cheney. I'm one of the few among my circle of friends and acquaintances who condemned it from the start.

Now was Halliburton awarded a contract in Iraq because Cheney was its ex-CEO? That's slightly more plausible but highly unlikely. If there were some funny business, it would have been something simpler, like a bribe.

I'd bet Cheney received "0" financial benefit from Halliburton's work in Iraq. I'm too lazy to check though. Why don't you see if you can find any indication that he still owned stock in Halliburton in 2003. If you can, you can say "I told you so."

With all due respect to my friend WTF, who does come up with pearls of wisdom from time to time, the idea that taxes should be raised on wealthy people because they're the ones who benefit from wars is crazy. They're the ones who pay for the wars, which generally benefit no one. Remember the top 1% of income earners pay around 35% to 40% of the income taxes.

Now if WTF wants to put the entire burden of the income tax on weapons manufacturers and Halliburton, OK, fair enough. They won't stay in business very long.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

So the reason the U.S. got into the Iraq war was so Halliburton could make money?

Now was Halliburton awarded a contract in Iraq because Cheney was its ex-CEO? That's slightly more plausible but highly, highly unlikely. If there was some funny business, it would have been something simpler, like a bribe.

The statement you were quoted in post #167 was this
"That’s malarkey that wars and foreign policy benefit the rich"
The post #167 on Haliburton shows that the rich can benefit from a WAR. Not that the rich start wars on purpose so they can benefit. Bush43 invaded Iraq for another reason. That's a different story and would be going off on a tangent to your original quote.

Haliburton did not have to compete with anyone to get that 7 billion dollar contract to feed the soldiers of the Iraq war. Why was it a no compete bid? Your guess is as good as mine.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The statement you were quoted in post #167 was this
"That’s malarkey that wars and foreign policy benefit the rich"
The post #167 on Haliburton shows that the rich can benefit from a WAR. Not that the rich start wars on purpose so they can benefit. Bush43 invaded Iraq for another reason. That's a different story and would be going off on a tangent to your original quote.

Haliburton did not have to compete with anyone to get that 7 billion dollar contract to feed the soldiers of the Iraq war. Why was it a no compete bid? Your guess is as good as mine.

Halliburton and its 7 billion dollar contract that you brought up is the tangent.

I was responding to WTF's statement, "the rich are not paying for the wars and foreign policies that benefit them much more so than the middle class and poor."

That's just not true. The high earners, all of them, pay an outsized part of the cost of the war because of the progressive income tax. When there's a war they get fucked.

Yeah, there are some wealthy people who own shares of weapons manufacturers and the like who benefit. Just as there are many people who are not wealthy who own shares directly, or indirectly through pension plans, mutual funds, etc., who benefit. But overall the rich get fucked worse than the poor and the middle class when there's a war.

The biggest losers are the poor souls who are killed and maimed in the service of the USA. And admittedly very few of them are wealthy.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

With all due respect to my friend WTF, who does come up with pearls of wisdom from time to time, the idea that taxes should be raised on wealthy people because they're the ones who benefit from wars is crazy. .

Two things...well three. This is not on topic but I'll bring it around so it kinda is.

1) Who benefits more, the poor bastards fighting the war or the rich investors who have stock in Defense Contractors?

2) if you're say a Ronnie Reagan lover do you think his tax hike that effected the poor and middle class moreso than the higher income earners ( you know those pesky regressive taxes work that way) was brilliant tax hike that enabled higher income earners that are more invested in the stock market to profit greatly with Ronnie's massive build up in military spending and , and this is a big AND....the brilliant part is that decades later his whippersnap worshipers have all grown up endocterned to now want to CUT those same SS and Medicare benefits that Reagan allegedly wanted to save!

Brilliant...you raise taxes in 1983 on SS and for decades you spend spend spend on Defense partially by raiding SS future savings , littering it with IOU's and then when SS is at the point where they start needing to spend their planned for saving....you Reagan lovers wanted to cut SS benefits. A brilliant brilliant transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class workers to the investment class. An investment class that does not pay SS and Medicare taxes!

Which is why you Reagan lovers had to convince yourself and others that debtvand deficits did not matter...I mean how else could you have hoodwinked yourself and so many others?

[Tiny]

All rebutted in this thread WTF. Please read your thread

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

All rebutted in this thread WTF. Please read your thread

It is not rebutted by the facts....such as the chart you provided that shows the steep climb in debt to GDP.

Now I know you seem to think intergovernmental debt to be insignificant. Reagan taught you that nonsense. For instance if you applied for a million bucks home loan and the bank said ... "Well , what about this million dollars you owe your parents? How are you going to pay both loans back?"

Tiny, taught by Reagan, replies " Oh don't worry about that parental loan, those interfamiliy loans do not matter."

[Tiny]

Here’s an interesting chart that shows maximum tax rates by year:

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stat...come-tax-rates

The income tax was introduced in 1913 at 7%. The rate went to 77% in 1918 to help pay for World War I.

The rate dropped back to 25% during the Administration of Calvin Coolidge, the second best American President of the 20th century.

The Revenue Act of 1932, passed during the Great Depression, raised tax rates across the board. The maximum rate went to 63%. That was about as stupid as passing the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. And something I suspect my friend WTF would have repeated during COVID, if he had been dictator. Or at least he blames the increase in national debt during the Trump administration entirely on Republicans, emphasizing the 2017 tax cut act. And he loves tax increases. And he never criticizes government spending except on defense and poverty stricken children in Florida. It follows he would have raised taxes in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930’s, in a futile attempt to hold down the national debt.

Sorry, I deviated. Back to the matter at hand. In 1944 the maximum tax rate was jacked up to 94%, to help pay for World War II.

So to recap, the tax rate on the highest earners was jacked up to 77% to help pay for World War I and 94% to help pay for World War II. So how on God’s Green Earth can you believe wars overall benefit the wealthy?

And thank goodness WTF didn’t become dictator in 2020!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Here’s an interesting chart that shows maximum tax rates by year:

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stat...come-tax-rates

The income tax was introduced in 1913 at 7%. The rate went to 77% in 1918 to help pay for World War I.

The rate dropped back to 25% during the Administration of Calvin Coolidge, the second best American President of the 20th century.

The Revenue Act of 1932, passed during the Great Depression, raised tax rates across the board. The maximum rate went to 63%. That was about as stupid as passing the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. And something I suspect my friend WTF would have repeated during COVID, if he had been dictator. Or at least he blames the increase in national debt during the Trump administration entirely on Republicans, emphasizing the 2017 tax cut act. And he loves tax increases. And he never criticizes government spending except on defense. It follows he would have raised taxes in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930’s, in a futile attempt to hold down the national debt.

Sorry, I deviated. Back to the matter at hand. In 1944 the maximum tax rate was jacked up to 94%, to help pay for World War II.

So to recap, the tax rate on the highest earners was jacked up to 77% to help pay for World War I and 94% to help pay for World War II. So how on God’s Green Earth can you believe wars overall benefit the wealthy?

What in the Sam Hill has that got to do when myself and David Stockman hpointeing out the decade where Reagan hoodwinked a whole generation of followers into believing that debt and deficits do not matter?

If you'd like to start a thread about how good wars are for poor people, fire away!

I suggest wealth inequality before you do though! Because I do believe you've mistaken wealth with income.