 |
Rob Simpson is no geopolitical, macro-economic, inside-the-Beltway expert. He’s an armchair analyst and creative director for an advertising agency, a former radio announcer and music critic in Ontario and a one-time voiceover actor. |
He calculates $1 trillion could pave the entire U.S. interstate highway system with gold — 23.5-karat gold leaf. It could buy every person on the planet an iPod. It could give every high school student in the United States a free college education. It could pay off every American’s credit card. It could buy a Buick for every senior citizen still driving in the United States.
“As I started exploring, I was really taken aback by some of the things that can be done, both the absurd and the practical,” Simpson said.
America could the double the 663,000 cops on the beat for 32 years. It could buy 16.6 million Habitat for Humanity houses, enough for 43 million Americans…
It’s too recent to make Simpson’s list, but that $1 trillion could also have paid for the Bush administration’s financial bailout plan, with $300 billion to spare. It might not be enough, however, to pay for the war in Iraq. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has recently upped his estimate of the war’s cost to $3 trillion.
Many have addressed this topic since it became clear the nutballs in charge were going to use 9/11 as the core of their new imperialism. Simpson has done it with a lot more humor and wit.
#8 – No Ted Kennedy jokes, please.
#7 – Negative. I actually foster debate because I can argue either side effectively, where as the liberal hacks… as well as most of the editors… can only state one side of an argument.
#10 – See? It got you to post an interesting question. In response, all that I’m saying is that we need to talk about taxation in an honest manor. Personally, I’m not a fan of the flat tax, but am a fan of creating a dividend type payout system… because it would eliminate the concept of someone that makes “no” money, and create a better environment to talk about taxing people who make money beyond what the government gives them (which is what the context of taxation is all about).
#11 – But only for the elite. The poor can look forward to Windows 7.
#17 – A meaningless post, as you repeat things that aren’t logical. As soon as McCain won the nomination the GOP’s power brokers started to focus on ’10. Wake up, drone.
#18 – For me, I’m not arguing that the right is any better… I’m simply stating that the left isn’t in position to speak on the subject because they aren’t forthright in their approach. If anything, your post confirms this, because you leave out the context around why those taxation methods can in to being.
At a fundamental level, and where I think we should be going as a country, wouldn’t you agree that taxing spending is more genuine that taxing income?
#20 – Your worship is noted.
James Hill,
Why the Estate Tax came into being? T.R. himself proposed it! James, clearly you have demonstrated on this blog that you can read. Here is a quick reference for you – http://tinyurl.com/6xa283
An an excerpt –
When Theodore Roosevelt demanded that Congress pass a steeply graduated inheritance tax in 1906, he was proposing the one bill that members of his own patrician class feared most. In attacking what they cherished – not just their money but also their sense of entitlement and superiority – he was challenging the class system, not the capitalist system, turning the upper-class world upside down. As far as these plutocrats were concerned, T.R. had betrayed his own class to the point of no return.
#23 Not really relevant as imposing this required the 16th Amendment that was pushed through by Dems.
Now, if you want to bring congressional spending under control, you have to cut off the available money.
James Hill and Paddy-O,
I made a mistake, President Ford signed the original EIC and every president has since extended and expanded it, including Reagan and Bush. Excellent, conservative leaning article on the topic here – http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance11.html
But how then could the Bush Crime Family and Prick Cheney/Halliburton have LINED THEIR POCKETS ??? The “PHONY WAR” in Iraq waged by the Pentagon, where they face NO ENEMY ARMY, NO ENEMY NAVY, AND NO ENEMY AIR FORCE is just a SINK-HOLE OF MILITARY EXPENDITURE TO ENRICH THE FAT-CATS IN THE AMERICAN MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX !!! Iraq, unfortunately, just happened to be in the CROSS-HAIRS OF THE AMERICAN WAR MACHINE !!! We can only hope that the next administration brings these WAR CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE !!!
Paddy-O,
The 16th Amendment was ratified February 3, 1913 and addresses Income Tax , the Estate Tax is totally separate and existed prior to the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Read more about the Estate Tax here – http://tinyurl.com/6db2gd
#26 The lining of pockets on both sides of the aisle will continue until people like you decide to stop giving congress unlimited access to the wealth of the citizens.
Why are you upset about the inevitable consequences of a mechanism that you enthusiastically support?
That’s not logical.
So is this another euphemism like “spread the wealth”?
How many cars & electronics are due to me? To make me elegible, think of me as an illegal alien who wants his share.
I hate it when tax money is spent on something half the population thinks is a waste of money then they go on and on about what they could have spent the money on. That’s why taxes never seem to go down or away. Someone always has a great idea on how to spend it.
In Washington, we have a hotel/rental car tax used to pay for part of the baseball and football stadiums. This tax is due to end early since the projected income was lower than actual. That’s a good thing and the stadiums will be paid off early. When the basketball team asked for a new arena and allowance to continue the tax to the original deadline, our thief governor was quoted as saying there were many other groups that had a right to that money. That tax will not end early and may be extended. Another reason to vote no for increased taxes. And vote for Rossi.
Dumb liberals don’t understand the benefits of destroying Iraq.
1. It helps the GOP cause as this issue appeals to our core base. That is we frighten them to vote for us as we just had to call Democrats weak.
2. Improves the balance sheet of those devoted to the Republican cause. Halliburton, oil companies, defense contracters, independent security firms will tell you that the economy is in great shape.
3. It decreases the number of democrats who make up most of the soldier & contactor-employee deaths. Bush-donors remain here & instead send cheap labor who risk their lives to Iraq.
4. If the liberal press would have left me alone, I would have been known as the greatest President ever for freeing Iraq. Instead, the media dwells on negatives such as the killing of civilians which to me is irrelevant since they are not even white. Whoops, I mean American white who would vote for me.
5. Scares people even in the U.S. which means more proection money for Bush-friendly folks. My administration can do anything, jackoffs. All I have to do is mention 9/11. Hell, we would have invaded Mexico too, but I don’t think I could have convinced the public down there to let us handle($$$) the rebuilding of their country.
Come Nov 4: Vote GOP or the terrorists will win. Remember 9/11?
#20 – Uncle Patso applies a reverse James Hill and wins the match!
#21 – James Hill – A national sales tax would be the fairest for everyone. You would pay tax on how much you spend… and tourists and illegals would help pay too.
#33 hhopper, “A national sales tax would be the fairest for everyone. ”
I agree and most Repubs agree. Dems, on the other hand would rather die than have a fair tax like that.
#23 – Again, context. The sentence “he was challenging the class system, not the capitalist system” tells you why the move was important: The state of things at that time required a shift.
The state of things today requires a new shift. That’s why democracy and capitalism work so well together.
#25 – Same song, different verse. The context of the issue is what matters.
#26 – You sound angry: Don’t take it out on your shift key, moron.
#31 – For someone who’s side is about to win an election, you sure seem afraid. Why not post under your real name?
#32 – Negative, as I owned him in a subsequent reply prior to yours, while my own statement at the beginning of the article cannot be refuted. Besides, I’m the only one here good enough at this bullshit to declare victories. However, your worship is noted.
#33 – No argument from me on that one.
#34 – Because the left couldn’t pay off people as easy in a sales tax-based system. Well stated.
George Will has an interesting take on a National Sales Tax:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14401-2005Mar30.html
Along with Death Tax and matching Executive Pay to employee pay, and correcting minimum wage and illegal immigration, and exempting the necessities of life for poor folk, et c, sounds like a worthwhile experiment.
Any country try it yet?
#36 I spoke to Linder & Hastern about this once. The Dems opposed and the Repubs didn’t have a filibuster proof margin.
You’d have to boot most of the Dems from Congress before something sane like this could go through.
Did you guys read the same story I did? TFA wasn’t about war spending, except that one comment. It was about foreign aid. And that has been outrageous for years and had nothing to do with any 9/11 inspired imperialism.
It’s too recent to make Simpson’s list, but that $1 trillion could also have paid for the Bush administration’s financial bailout plan, with $300 billion to spare
http://tinyurl.com/56f6tx
This if funny!!!!
The government forces some of the major banks to take the money and then gets mad when they don’t use it they way they wanted.
Hah, hah. The Feds (yes Dems) forcing the banks to lend money when they didn’t want to is one of the primary causes of the current mess.
I guess its like FREE speech, this FREE market system. No one understands it, supports it, or actually wants to live with it–with lip service generously dolled out.