Iraq, Afghan War Costs Are $1.6 Trillion — AP

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing, apparently, a lot more than the White House predicted. By the way, the Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One simple vote could end both wars; all they have to do is not give any more money.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

By the way, the Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One simple vote could end both wars; all they have to do is not give any more money.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said.

By the way, the Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One simple vote could end both wars; all they have to do is not give any more money.

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

By the way, the Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One simple vote could end both wars; all they have to do is not give any more money.

The report comes as the House prepares to vote this week on another effort by Democrats to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq as a condition for providing another $50 billion for the war.

I refuse to consider any conflicts we are engaged in, now that Democrats are in control of both Houses of Congress, as “Bush’s wars” or “Republican’s wars.” The Democrats are in complete control of the money, yet they keep funding it. If people wanted the Iraq war over with, and America to come home in defeat leaving Iraq a vacuum for one of the regional dictatorships to take over, then the Democrats would end it. Obviously, they aren’t. We would all be better with less rhetoric over the war in Iraq and more true information — but don’t hold your breath.

UPDATE: Here is an article from The Politico that sums up my above post rather nicely:

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.

Only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats. That one was vetoed by Bush.

Indeed, the only war legislation enacted during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

In other words, the Democrats are 0 of 40; and, they only manage to go 1 for 40 just amongst themselves. The Democrats were unable to vote a majority on 39 of 40 pieces of legislation dealing with Iraq, instead giving the President “exactly what he wants.” Sorry people, these are America’s wars, and if you voted Democrat because you were fed up, congratulations, you were duped.

Amid gloom and doom, US tops list of world’s most competitive economies — Ars Technica

Yawn. The United States has the world’s most competitive economy. Also: sky blue, grass green.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but you probably haven’t. The last two years have seen an enormous amount of fretting over US economic strength and competitiveness, but the WEF’s research indicates that things may be much better than perceived.

The reason that “you probably haven’t” heard that the economy is doing well is because of a willing media parroting the Democratic party’s talking points on the economy. If the President was a Democrat, and if we had the same economy, people would have a vastly different opinion. In that case, the willing media would be showering the (Democrat) President with praise, not-so-subtly “reminding” the American voters of reasons to keep Democrats in office.

As an aside, if you have trouble believing that the economy just peachy, just do what I did yesterday: go to the mall.

I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett — The Guardian

The United States’ second-richest man is asking to pay more taxes.

Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the “Sage of Omaha”, has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: “The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It’s dramatic; I don’t think it’s appreciated and I think it should be addressed.”

Something that I’ve never understood is why there isn’t one extra field on tax returns: “Voluntary tax amount.” Every so often we get these news stories where the rich-rich (the ultra-super-mega-rich) want to pay more taxes. For the love of everything that is holy, let these people pay more taxes! All it takes is an extra field asking them how much extra they want to pay.

This is what I can’t stand:

A leading Democrat, the Harlem congressman Charlie Rangel, published alternative plans this week that would impose a 4% surcharge on people earning more than $200,000 a year, while delivering tax relief to 90 million working families.

What kind of flunkie failed fourth-grade math to somehow relate these two figures? A quick calculation shows me that people that make $200,000 per year make 0.000003846% what Warren Buffett is worth. These two groups can’t even remotely be considered in the same galaxy; hell, these two groups can’t even be considered the same planet. (To put this in perspective, a person worth $50,000 is worth the same proportionate amount when compared with someone making $.19 per year.) Maybe instead we need a “4% surcharge” (read: 4% tax increase) on those people worth $50 billion or more.

If Warren Buffett wants to pay more tax then let him; however, don’t use a man who is worth more than my city to show me that other, demonstrably unrelated, groups need to pay more.

Gore, U.N. Body Win Nobel Peace Prize — AP

The Nobel Peace Prize has continued its slide into utter irrelevancy and shameful politicking. There was a day when the Peace prize was given to such worthy individuals as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mother Teresa.

As of late, though, the Peace Prize is awarded to those who best represent international anti-American or leftist politics. Such notable individuals include: Yassar Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Mohamed ElBaradei, and now Al Gore.

Should you be taxed to subsidize ‘The New York Times’? — CNet

Newspapers around the country, by and large, are suffering declines in revenue. Most of the decline can be directly attributed to corresponding aspects of the Internet (although, one can make a strong argument that a not unimportant reason for the decline is the overwhelming political bias of the big papers). Now, the first mention of subsidies for newspapers has slipped out.

Now newspapers are facing a hurricane-strength competitive gale, and they, understandably, don’t like it one bit. A recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review titled “The Uncle Sam Solution” suggests everything from ownership tax incentives and R&D subsidies for the development of electronic paper–to a straightforward redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to newspaper owners and employees.

[…]

But probably the biggest reason to be wary of higher taxes to help out newspapers is the broader one: Bailing out an industry that’s suffering because of technological change or increased competition is not a wise choice in the long run. Afternoon newspapers are largely a defunct breed for the obvious reasons; would society really be better off if taxes were raised to subsidize such money-losing ventures for purposes of nostalgia?

I quote the CNet article instead of the underlying article furthering the idea of subsidies, et al., because of some finer points mentioned:

The stiff winds of Internet competition have already swept through countless businesses, including travel agents, car dealers, wine retailers and stock brokers.

Some have adapted. Some have perished. I have a friend who, to his chagrin, became a licensed stockbroker in Pennsylvania just as E*Trade and other Internet brokerages were becoming popular. And does anyone even remember travel agents anymore?

[…]

Now, everyone says they like competition in theory, but nobody actually likes to have competitors in practice. For the better part of a decade, Craigslist and eBay have been slowly nibbling away at newspapers’ classified-ads business. A 2005 MediaPost article says that as a result, according to McKinsey, newspapers have lost as much as 75 percent of their pricing abilities in key categories such as employment and general merchandise. Google is another competitive threat, with both broad and very targeted ads, and the cost of newsprint probably isn’t helping.

The statement “nobody actually likes to have competitors in practice” is a bit overbroad. The author obviously means that nobody likes to have their own competitors, but I am quite happy — in fact, perfectly happy — to have competitors of every product that I purchase.

I’m not nit-picking the author’s article; I just want to point out that I like having competitors for my news, too, and there are plenty. The newspapers can either compete or die, and because of the aforementioned reason in the parentheses above, I just as soon prefer they die.