Like it or not if the security needs continue to increase, there is a very real question as to how we educe enough young people to provide the needed troops for an all-volunteer Armed Force? It is a matter of both at WHAT COST and CAN THE LARGER FORCE BE SUSTAINED?

I suspect you are going to start the draft rumor again like you claimed was going to happen years ago and never did.  The fact is enlistment is meeting its goals, and this appears just to be another anti-Bush propaganda piece.

IslandDog

The fact is that enlistment objectives are JUST being met. There were times when both the Army and Marines did not meet their recruiting needs. My question is if we ramp up significantly the need to recruit to increase the size of our ground forces can it be done and at what cost?

IslandDog

You see a Bush in EVERY WOOD PILE!

I just contacted the Army Recruiting office to learn what we are paying in bonuses. The front end enlistment is $20-40,000 and the education benefit up to $72,000. That means to recruit 120,000 into the Army could cost $13 Billion just in enlistment incentives. The cost when they are on active duty has been estimated for 10,000 military at $1.2 Billion per year. Thus for another 120,000 it will add $14 Billion per year to the budget. All this and tax cuts to the rich!

You see a Bush in EVERY WOOD PILE!

I'm not the one with an obsession over Bush, col.  Let's get that straight.

That means to recruit 120,000 into the Army could cost $13 Billion just in enlistment incentives. The cost when they are on active duty has been estimated for 10,000 military at $1.2 Billion per year. Thus for another 120,000 it will add $14 Billion per year to the budget. All this and tax cuts to the rich!

What does tax cuts to Americans have to do with?  Do you just have to throw in some left wing rhetoric in every post you make about Bush?  All you have done is complain about troop levels, and now you complain about how much more troops would cost?

 

IslandDog

“What does tax cuts to Americans have to do with?”

Simple - No rational person pays for added cost by cutting their income. We have borrowed every cent we have spent in Iraq. As our defense cost increase we must come up with the tax revenue to pay the added cost. This is the very first war that was not funded by increased taxes!

Simple - No rational person pays for added cost by cutting their income. We have borrowed every cent we have spent in Iraq. As our defense cost increase we must come up with the tax revenue to pay the added cost. This is the very first war that was not funded by increased taxes!

Then lets tax all Americans, and not just invoke class warfare.  Let's cut welfare and other worthless government programs. 

How about you send all your taxes back to the government col?  Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

IslandDog

I favor considering the “Ability to pay.” I also know that to increase taxes on middle income workers will have a greater impact on spending then to increase taxes on the wealthy. Thus from Both the economics as well as the social impact, it makes far better sense to resend the tax cuts to the top 10% and keep the tax cuts to middle income workers which is what I favor!

Per the 2004 data (from CBO) 70% of the total Tax cuts went to the top 20% and 30% to the middle income taxpayers. When all the cuts to the wealthy are phased in, the estimate is that 90% of the tax cut dollars will flow to the top 20% and 10% to the middle income taxpayers. The bottom 20% receive almost no benefit from the Bush tax cuts.

I favor considering the “Ability to pay.” I also know that to increase taxes on middle income workers will have a greater impact on spending then to increase taxes on the wealthy. Thus from Both the economics as well as the social impact, it makes far better sense to resend the tax cuts to the top 10% and keep the tax cuts to middle income workers which is what I favor!

We have gone over this over and over again.  A minimal tax on the middle class will not affect them as dramatically as you claim.  You have valid reason to tax the rich any more than "they can afford it".  Which is pure bs.  You just want to tax rich people, you could care less about the consequences which people here, including business owners have told you would happen.

 

Island Dog

I have provided the economic argument - the middle Income tax payers will spend almost 100% of any added income they keep from the tax cut. The wealthy will not reduce their spending if the tax cuts were rescinded. Thus it is better for spending (demand) to allow the middle income taxpayer to keep their tax cut and rescind the cuts to the top 20%. In addition the loss of the tax cut would not impact the life style of the wealthy like it would to the middle income tax payer.

I just contacted the Army Recruiting office to learn what we are paying in bonuses. The front end enlistment is $20-40,000 and the education benefit up to $72,000. That means to recruit 120,000 into the Army could cost $13 Billion just in enlistment incentives. The cost when they are on active duty has been estimated for 10,000 military at $1.2 Billion per year. Thus for another 120,000 it will add $14 Billion per year to the budget. All this and tax cuts to the rich!

Your facts are correct, your conclusion is wrong.

Those bonuses are paid to people in critical fields only. Not every person will be getting a bonus for enlisting. When I went in they were paying bonuses for cooks because they needed more cooks that year. The reason why the bonuses are so high is because the job market is so large. You can get a job paying more money as a garbage man than you get as a member of our military. To attract the brighter people they pay more. They can't do it by salary so they pay a bonus.

I have provided the economic argument - the middle Income tax payers will spend almost 100% of any added income they keep from the tax cut. The wealthy will not reduce their spending if the tax cuts were rescinded. Thus it is better for spending (demand) to allow the middle income taxpayer to keep their tax cut and rescind the cuts to the top 20%. In addition the loss of the tax cut would not impact the life style of the wealthy like it would to the middle income tax payer.

So where did all these jobs come from if not from the "rich"? Every time a new job opens up it means a "rich" person is spending money.

the middle Income tax payers will spend almost 100% of any added income they keep from the tax cut.

That is not a fact at all, and if any of it is true, then it's the peoples fault they don't know how to manage their money. 

The wealthy will not reduce their spending if the tax cuts were rescinded. Thus it is better for spending (demand) to allow the middle income taxpayer to keep their tax cut and rescind the cuts to the top 20%. In addition the loss of the tax cut would not impact the life style of the wealthy like it would to the middle income tax payer.

How are you speaking for the wealthy?  Do you not think successful Americans have businesses to be responsible for?  You have not presented any good arguement for raising taxes on successful Americans other than "they can afford it", which is ridiculous to even propose that. 

IslandDog

You are correct most people do not manage their money well. However the savings rate, or lack of it, proves what I have said. Most middle income taxpayers will SPEND most if not all of any tax cut. If the tax cuts to middle income taxpayers were to end, they would spend less and the economy would be negatively impacted. That is why the middle income tax cuts should be made permanent.

I do not speak for the wealthy but mealy point out their behavior. The reality is that the wealthy spend what they want and do not need or depend on that added money from the Bush Tax Cuts to buy all they want. The issue has nothing to do with penalizing successful Americans. Even after restoring the tax rates to pre Bush, they do just fine. The issue is that we can not continue to run the deficit we have been running and ONLY by Added Tax Revenue from those that can afford it plus spending cuts in non essential areas can deal with the deficit! Look at my Blog- Smoke and Mirrors.

Most middle income taxpayers will SPEND most if not all of any tax cut.

Do you have any facts to back that up with, or are you just speaking for classes again?

I do not speak for the wealthy but mealy point out their behavior. The reality is that the wealthy spend what they want and do not need or depend on that added money from the Bush Tax Cuts to buy all they want

To be perfectly blunt, that is just ignorant.  Are you rich?  How many people do you know who are rich?  What wealthy people are you basing your rhetoric on? 

The issue is that we can not continue to run the deficit we have been running and ONLY by Added Tax Revenue from those that can afford it plus spending cuts in non essential areas can deal with the deficit! Look at my Blog- Smoke and Mirrors.

How many times have you been shown that increasing taxes will not solve your problem you are so obsessed with?  Keep ignoring what everybody is telling you col, you are proving yourself wrong every single day.

Island Dog

Yes by past actions. There is a wealth of data that shows that middle income workers spend all the money they earn and if the tax cuts they currently have end they will spend less which does not help the economy or the people themselves. That is why the tax cuts to middle income families should be made permanent.

No, I am in the top third of the middle income Americans.

"How many times have you been shown that increasing taxes will not solve your problem you are so obsessed with?"

You are simply wrong. If we add back $200 Billion that goes to the wealthy in the current tax cuts and DO NOT add new spending programs, we will be $200 Billion closer to a balanced budget. Add another $50 Billion in pork and better tax collections from those that do not fully pay their taxes and we have a good shot of at least balancing the budget. After we have the budget balanced, we need to see how we can begin repaying the nearly $9 Trillion we have amassed in debt!