Paul & Grayson: The War Is Making You Poor Act

Fresh off his "You own the Red Roof Inn" tour, Alan Grayson gives another svelte performance as he introduces the latest soon-to-be buried-in-committee bill with the help of his trusty easel.  Soon-to-be buried because the bill, co-sponsored by Ron Paul, would exempt the first $35,000 in income for each person in America from federal taxation,  putatively helping the average Joe while simultaneously forcing a hint of fiscal responsibility.  As Grayson introduces it:

It requires the administration to carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with only--that's "only"--the $549 billion set forth in the President's budget for defense spending, without the additional $159 billion the President has asked for--for the sake of the so-called emergency war which stretches on for 9 years in one case and 7 years in the other...

In case you missed it, here's the Red Roof Inn special.  And, as an aside, we're sure the sarcasm-laced easel and posterboard method of introducing legislation will catch on as congressman wake up to the 21st century and finally realize Al Gore's invention can make even the most empty chamber under the rotunda worth the taxpayer dollars used to fund the CSPAN-8 cameras.

ht EPJ

Comments

[seventree]

First of all, thanks for the clarifications on the China opium wars. Apparently I had an unclear understanding of that era.

Anyway I wasn't presenting an argument to what you said originally. It's just that I have seen the premise that US military power somehow provides us with unassailable economic advantage, stated as given truth both in the MSM and in ZH comments, and I always ask myself "how does that work exactly?" I can see how it applied in sidelining Saddam's plan, but not as a general principle to be relied on. Unless we are planning so send gunboats into Chinese harbors and holler through the longhailer, "revalue the renminbi or else!"

[Rick64]

Like TGD below said big business does the annexing. All the defense contractors, private contractors, oil companies, and corporations have made huge amounts of money. The U.S. had to cut some of these other countries in on the deal so they would have an incentive to keep the occupation going, and also to reward those that were in on the scam. Many of the countries had oil and other contracts with Iraq before the war started, so it was source of contention. Its not about making the U.S. government reap the benefits, but about the oligarchs reaping them, after all you don't think those politicians care about the measely salary and benefits we pay them do you. Those lobbyists and corp.s pay way more and give them employment when they are done with their ( treason ) terms.

[colorfulbliss]

My apologies seventree, I accidentally junked your post. I was meaning to junk DosZap's idiocy below, which I will now carry through with!

[AnAnonymous]

For decades, the US has only waged wars on easy countries. The missing 160$ billions are not necessarily needed.

An extortion scheme grows good when it pays off by itself. So the money will be found elsewhere.

Quick example: the Opium wars and its results paid off for the British navy budget. The british tax payer did not have to put a dime from his pocket to support the extortion effort of his country.

This is also what signals the success of a good extortion scheme. Pressuring others at the end of the world to relieve pressure on your own population, giving later the opportunity to boast about advanced governance.

The grip on the world by the US military is what gives its value to the USD. Without it, the US would be indeed poor as they lose their capability of producing pixeldust.