Generals in Iraq change to more sober tone-Sean Naylor

[KB]

Generals get frank
Frustration over Iraq yields change in tone, sources say

By Sean D. Naylor (snaylor@atpco.com?subject=Question%20from%20MarineCorpsTimes.com%20reader)
Army Times Staff writer
The more sober tone adopted recently by generals regarding events in Iraq has raised eyebrows in Washington, with military and congressional sources saying the blunt rhetoric reflects frustration among military leaders at the worsening situation, as well as their desire to preserve their credibility and insulate themselves from blame if the Iraq war ends in disaster.
Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, senior spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq, made headlines Oct. 19 when he remarked at the start of his regularly scheduled press conference in Baghdad that the increased violence over the previous several weeks was “disheartening.”
He noted that despite efforts by U.S. and Iraqi forces to reduce the sectarian warfare raging in Baghdad — an operation dubbed “Together Forward” — attacks had risen by 22 percent in the first three weeks of Ramadan, compared with the three weeks prior to the Muslim holy month.
“In Baghdad, Operation Together Forward has made a difference in the focus areas but has not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence,” Caldwell said.
His comments were the latest example of what military and congressional sources said was a recent tendency on the part of the generals most closely associated with the war in Iraq to speak more bluntly about the conflict.
The shift in tone first became evident Aug. 3, they said, when Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the level of violence in Iraq made significant U.S. troop reductions unlikely before the end of this year.
“I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war,” Abizaid said.
Marine Maj. Matt McLaughlin, a Central Command spokesman, disagreed with the notion that Abizaid had changed his tone in recent months.
“In my time here, he has been exceedingly realistic and understanding that we will continue to see spikes in violence and that should be our normal expectation,” said McLaughlin, who has been at Central Command for almost three years.
McLaughlin cited a series of public comments by Abizaid to back up his comments.
“One of the things we have wanted to do is temper the upside expectation that the American public has that this thing is going to be solved by a few simple answers, and as we try to explain that, we take every opportunity we can to do a degree of management of the public’s expectation that this thing is going to be ... easy and over shortly,” McLaughlin said.“Certainly, within the last month or so, you’ve seen a different tone coming out of Baghdad.”
But, he added, the change in tone related specifically to “expectations that were not met in Together Forward” — not to any larger issues.
‘They can smell failure’
However, retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said the change in tone was the result of the Bush administration trying to shift responsibility for the war onto the shoulders of the generals.
“The administration has pushed it to them,” said Kellogg, a former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division who retired in October 2003 as the J-6 of the Joint Staff, and who served in Baghdad as chief operating officer of the Coalition Provisional Authority from November 2004 to April 2005.
Until recently, Army leaders had played “the good soldiers,” he said. “Now they’re saying, ‘Hey, if my name is going to be associated with this, and the good name of the United States Army is going to be associated with this, and the future of the Army is going to be associated with this, and the trust and confidence of the U.S. people in our Army is going to be associated with this, then by God, I’m going to have a say in it.’”
The generals were attempting to insulate themselves from future criticism that they tried to sugarcoat events in Iraq, he said.
All the generals were familiar with “Dereliction of Duty,” the book by now-Col. H.R. McMaster that criticizes the senior military leaders of the Vietnam era for not speaking out as the U.S. slipped into war in Southeast Asia.
They are trying to avoid being written about in the same way, Kellogg said.
Another retired Army leader went further, saying the generals were speaking out because they could sense disaster. “They can smell failure,” he said.
But he added that military leadership was partly to blame.
“We’ve never had a strategy to defeat the insurgency. Our military strategy is essentially to transition to the Iraqi security forces so they can do it. And we’ve relied heavily on the political strategy of establishing an effective government,” Kellogg said.
But the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been a disappointment, particularly in its failure to reach out to Iraq’s Sunni minority, the retired senior Army leader said.
“When they did not enfranchise the Sunnis — in fact, they disenfranchised them — the Sunnis and al-Qaida provoked this violence that we see in Baghdad,” he said. “What that’s done is it’s sparked the sectarian violence, and I think it also exposes the fact that we over-relied on the political process.”
A retired field grade officer familiar with current operations in Iraq said this disappointment with the al-Maliki government is, in part, what has prompted the somber tone emanating from Baghdad.
“They have come to the realization that ... the Maliki government has let them down badly, and I think they have done a re-evaluation of where they are,” he said. “The bottom line is they have recognized the fact that they were way too optimistic, based upon the fact that they were taking the word of a country that was ostensibly our ally in the fight, and now they’ve gone to the verify mode, they’ve found that things aren’t as positive.”
He added that U.S. officials have “completely underestimated the influence of the militias,” particularly the degree to which the Maliki government is tied to the Shi’a and hard-line cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
“I think those realizations are coming home to roost,” he said.
Rosy picture wilting away
Part of the problem, the retired field grade officer said, was that senior leaders in Iraq, Central Command and the Pentagon let themselves be “seduced” by statistics that indicated more progress was being made than was actually the case. He cited the number of “trained and equipped” Iraqi troops as an example.
Some recent internal assessments by Central Command and others in the Defense Department, as well as the failure of Operation Together Forward to achieve its goals, have reinforced the gravity of the situation in Iraq to the Central Command leadership, he said.
“There have been some serious splashes of cold water put in some people’s faces in the last 60 to 90 days,” he said.
The difficulties encountered with Together Forward have “caused them to question all of their assumptions,” he added.
However, he said, the generals are also “trying to set the tone” for what might happen at home if the Democrats win control of Congress in the November elections.
“They’re trying to put the record straight [for] when the investigations begin,” he said. “Part of that is going to be, ‘You never told us the truth about the war.’ The uniformed guys have been trying to say, ‘Hey, this is an ugly war, it’s going to be an ugly war, and don’t tell us we didn’t tell you that.’”
The shift in tone on the part of the generals is not completely consistent. While Caldwell said Oct. 19 that Together Forward had not met U.S. expectations in terms of a reduction of violence in Baghdad, Army Gen. George Casey, the MNF-I commander, said five days later in a joint press conference with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad that the additional U.S. brigades sent to Baghdad for the operation have had “a decisive effect.”
“There are some people who have not taken the rose-colored glasses off,” said the retired field grade officer. “Somebody was misinformed, and my money is on it not being Caldwell. ... Caldwell is genetically incapable of lying. Caldwell would only say it if he believed it.”
“Casey and Khalilzad had a press conference because they were trying to correct the impression” that Caldwell created, a Senate staffer said. “I think Caldwell was pretty candid and expressing a frustration that these guys aren’t doing what they ought to be doing.”
A House staffer said the shift in tone by the military leaders had been noted in Congress, and that Caldwell’s comments in particular had attracted attention because he made them “in such a public forum and obviously ... planned.”
But he suggested lawmakers had been hearing similar assessments from military leaders in private. Caldwell’s grim tone “is what they’re used to getting [I]sotto voce, behind closed doors,” the House staffer said.
An active-duty Army general in the Washington area said Caldwell has a reputation as a “straight shooter ... but in that position, he’s speaking for others. It is telling when someone in his position is as candid as he has been.”
The general said he was aware of no formal or informal directive from the senior Army leadership that generals were freer to speak their minds about Iraq — but that would be unnecessary.
“It’s certainly not something you can sugarcoat right now,” he said. “We’re down by a couple of touchdowns here.”
But he said he does not think generals were speaking up out of fear the Army is in danger of breaking.
“The Army is a very resilient force,” he said. “It’s faced adversity before, it will face adversity again. I don’t think it’s in danger of being broken either morally or structurally. Clearly we’re pushing pretty hard — that’s no secret — but I don’t see this breaking the way we broke the Army in Vietnam and had to totally rebuild it. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that.”
Kellogg agreed that the Army is “healthy,” but he agreed with the retired senior Army leader that the military had not pursued a strategy for victory in Iraq, which was what put the Army’s future at risk, he said.
“What’s going to break the Army is if you don’t decide on a strategy that’s going to win,” he said. “A strategy that’s going to break the Army is if you go through all the sacrifice and you call it a draw.”

[Secret Squirrel]

interesting read. thanks for posting.

[Durandal]

Yeah, agreed, an interesting read.

[Herrmannek]

Sorry for tautology, but if making generals responsible makes them actually act more responsible. I don't see a problems with that...

[Jobu]

Sorry for tautology, but if making generals responsible makes them actually act more responsible. I don't see a problems with that...

It's a Sean Naylor article. As far as i could tell, all this guy ever does is criticize.

[Secret Squirrel]

Sorry for tautology, but if making generals responsible makes them actually act more responsible. I don't see a problems with that...

The problem is that Bush and friends have been singing the praises of Iraq for a long time. And for the most part, the military has been towing the line or at least remaining quiet. But it seems that some think they're being scapegoated and they're removing the bull**** glasses and becoming increasingly more candid about Iraq. It seems that a lot of people are preparing to abandon ship or at least attempt to shock with reality to determine how the next chapter of the Iraq occupation will be written.

[annihilation]

They have been more truthful for over a year now, its nothing new. I love how the administration would say one thing and then they would get a sound bit from a general it would be totally different.

[annihilation]

It's a Sean Naylor article. As far as i could tell, all this guy ever does is criticize.


Well its not like there is much of anything to be proud of from this adminstration. All they have to show for their 8 years is false hope and let downs and the real **** hasn't come to light yet.

[Red]

What these Generals are doing is too little too late.

[Jobu]

Well its not like there is much of anything to be proud of from this adminstration. All they have to show for their 8 years is false hope and let downs and the real **** hasn't come to light yet.

I believe there is much to be proud of both from the administration and from the military.

-Taliban no longer in control of Afhanistan? check
-Saddam and his sons no longer in control of Iraq? check
-Providing seniors with more affordable prescription drugs? check
-Turning an economy in decline into one of growth? check
-Lowering my taxes at the same time? check
-Finally beginning to fight back against the terrorists who have been attacking us for decades? check
-Keeping traitor John Kerry out of the White House? check
-Turning leftists the world over into rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth maniacs? Icing on the cake.

[Red]

I believe there is much to be proud of both from the administration and from the military.

-Taliban no longer in control of Afhanistan? check
-Saddam and his sons no longer in control of Iraq? check
-Providing seniors with more affordable prescription drugs? check
-Turning an economy in decline into one of growth? check
-Lowering my taxes at the same time? check
-Finally beginning to fight back against the terrorists who have been attacking us for decades? check
-Keeping traitor John Kerry out of the White House? check
-Turning leftists the world over into rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth maniacs? Icing on the cake.

You are joking right?

[annihilation]

I believe there is much to be proud of both from the administration and from the military.

-Taliban no longer in control of Afhanistan? check
-Saddam and his sons no longer in control of Iraq? check
-Providing seniors with more affordable prescription drugs? check
-Turning an economy in decline into one of growth? check
-Lowering my taxes at the same time? check
-Finally beginning to fight back against the terrorists who have been attacking us for decades? check
-Keeping traitor John Kerry out of the White House? check
-Turning leftists the world over into rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth maniacs? Icing on the cake.

Taliban left Afghan but we have so few troops they are making a come back... check
the Iraqis and America were better off with Saddam in power than this fubar plan (300 billion and counting).....check
Senior prescription drug plan is the biggest rip off and waste of money in history (lets not even talk about how its over budget by the tens of billions)....check
The economy cycles, it has its downs and ups.....check
Lowering your taxes by a whole 300 bucks, while leveraging our childrens future with our ever increased debt.....check
Giving the terrorists a new play ground to attack and helping radicalize an even larger mulism population....check
I agree with John Kerry, but if given the chance i would have voted for mickey mouse versus these two idiots.....
You mean turning the world who loved us and supported us after 9/11 into completely hating us and dragging the semi decent standing we had in the world into nothing....check

[Jobu]

I say tomAYto, you say tomAHto.

The funniest bit was this:

the world who loved us and supported us after 9/11

ROFL! I wish it were true. The truth was that there was a little bit of sympathy mixed with a whole lot of foreigners simply liking to see America hurt and looking weak. That's what they supported. As soon as we shrugged off the "woe is me" attitude they went right back to hating us.

[Red]

I say tomAYto, you say tomAHto.

The funniest bit was this:


ROFL! I wish it were true. The truth was that there was a little bit of sympathy mixed with a whole lot of foreigners simply liking to see America hurt and looking weak. That's what they supported. As soon as we shrugged off the "woe is me" attitude they went right back to hating us.

You really need to get out more often.There was a huge outporing and it was misused by Bush.Also you need to learn that folks overseas don't have beef with ordinary Americans but they have beef with this govt.A lot of Americans including yourself have a problem distinguishing the two.

[Jobu]

I already adressed your "huge outpouring". It wasn't love. It was sympathy mixed with a desire to see America on its knees. Soon as we stood up the sympathy stopped.

Btw, I've spent years overseas and seen first-hand how foreigners (Europe and ME in particular) have had a beef with America way before Bush ever got into office.

[annihilation]

I say tomAYto, you say tomAHto.

The funniest bit was this:


ROFL! I wish it were true. The truth was that there was a little bit of sympathy mixed with a whole lot of foreigners simply liking to see America hurt and looking weak. That's what they supported. As soon as we shrugged off the "woe is me" attitude they went right back to hating us.

Ok maybe the word loved us was a bit strong. But I do remember marches around the world, including in Iran, in support of those who died on 9/11. I remember increase talks with the russians. We had an oppurtinity handed to us to make something better after this tragic event and Bush wasted it.

[Red]

I already adressed your "huge outpouring". It wasn't love. It was sympathy mixed with a desire to see America on its knees. Soon as we stood up the sympathy stopped.

Btw, I've spent years overseas and seen first-hand how foreigners (Europe and ME in particular) have had a beef with America way before Bush ever got into office.

Sympathy,love or whatever it was got misused.I have lived overseas and myself am an immigrant to America and my own views are different.

[Jobu]

And what exactly were other nations willing to give Bush out of a sense of sympathy? Was France going to help with Saddam out of sympathy? Was Russia going to stop bulding the Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran out of sympathy? Was China going to stop Kim Jong Il from building nukes out of sympathy?

Give me a break. Sympathy is not a useful bargaining chip when you are talking about national interests.

[Hiroshima]

Monkeys. Well....one nation was, for the purpose of clearing mine fields.

:D

[Gibby]

It's a Sean Naylor article. As far as i could tell, all this guy ever does is criticize.

as far as I can tell, the only reason you think that is because hes criticizing your views.

excellent article.

[Red]

And what exactly were other nations willing to give Bush out of a sense of sympathy? Was France going to help with Saddam out of sympathy? Was Russia going to stop bulding the Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran out of sympathy? Was China going to stop Kim Jong Il from building nukes out of sympathy?

Give me a break. Sympathy is not a useful bargaining chip when you are talking about national interests.

So let me get this right,you want other countries to support American self interest by going against their own interests right?Bright bulb you are.

[annihilation]

And what exactly were other nations willing to give Bush out of a sense of sympathy? Was France going to help with Saddam out of sympathy? Was Russia going to stop bulding the Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran out of sympathy? Was China going to stop Kim Jong Il from building nukes out of sympathy?

Give me a break. Sympathy is not a useful bargaining chip when you are talking about national interests.


Well instead of going all alone in Iraq, like it was some emergency. We could have waited for the UN and gave everyone the time to decide. France even asked they wanted another 3 months for the inspectors before considering joining us. Seriously, we could have waited till 2004 and invaded and we would be just in the same **** hole mess we are in now, but atleast we would have other nations besides the "coalition of the bought". Plus we would have given the world the time they needed to decide so it would look like we didn't give negotiations and peace a chance. More like how his father did it. But to bad the son doesn't seek advice from his old man.

[Jobu]

So let me get this right,you want other countries to support American self interest by going against their own interests right?Bright bulb you are.

I never said that. Learn to read.

[Jobu]

Well instead of going all alone in Iraq, like it was some emergency. We could have waited for the UN and gave everyone the time to decide. France even asked they wanted another 3 months for the inspectors before considering joining us. Seriously, we could have waited till 2004 and invaded and we would be just in the same **** hole mess we are in now, but atleast we would have other nations besides the "coalition of the bought". Plus we would have given the world the time they needed to decide so it would look like we didn't give negotiations and peace a chance. More like how his father did it. But to bad the son doesn't seek advice from his old man.

What a load of bull.

[giggler]

maybe its better to turn Iraq over to the UN and see if they can do better job then US but then they'll be asking for help if it gets that bad.

[annihilation]

maybe its better to turn Iraq over to the UN and see if they can do better job then US but then they'll be asking for help if it gets that bad.


The UN pull out of there some time ago. They won't even touch this. No one in there right mind would touch Iraq.

[Notlim]

What was the infamous prase? you brake it you own it!

[annihilation]

What was the infamous prase? you brake it you own it!


There is another one too, you break it, you throw it in the trash.

[Notlim]

There is another one too, you break it, you throw it in the trash.

you know U.S Armed forces been fighting for how long now? five years? is that how you sum up your leadership? c'mon there is a problem when leadership does not come from the top and a simplistic solution/view of a mess is only a fool answer for a job badly done, someone will be held accountable, there is still a political solution to this! but the current administration is not seekin it, there must be an equation where everyone wins, you know not all victories are 100% a 60% or a 55% is some situations is a win! and cut and run is not an option.

[Durandal]

...there must be an equation where everyone wins, you know not all victories are 100% a 60% or a 55% is some situations is a win! and cut and run is not an option.

*snort*

Wait, you just said all victories are not 100%, why isn't pulling out a win?

Look at what you gain:

Time to rebuild a broken military. The soldiers MAY be fine but the hardware is getting crap kicked out of it. We have a lot of work to do there...a WHOLE lot.

Money. We are pouring money into a deep dark whole with absolutely no return.

Focus on the REAL War On Terror.

No more WMD threats (lets be honest, Iran is more of a threat here in this regard...maybe).

Saddam is out of the picture...sort of. Not that he wasn't better for the nation prior to the invasion, regardless of how many people he killed and tortured. He kept the country running and while he was our enemy he was MORE of enemy to radical Islam.

We can focus on other stuff. Like China and Iran, which are far more important though for much different reasons.

We let Iraq run its course and we learn, hopefully, from our mistakes.

Cut and Run is a tag line for a campaign of a politician who has OUR best interests almost last...well, till election time.

We left Vietnam, and look where Vietnam is today. Everyone predicted horror stories and bleakness for a hundred years. There was some initial ugliness, but its come around the past decade. Now its a completely different place.

It'll happen that way in Iraq, or it won't. Maybe what needs to happen IS a massive civil war to get people to actually WANT the freedom they have been given. It would be horrible, true, but we simply cannot be there to hold people that hate each other from killing each other for ever...

[Noble713]

I believe there is much to be proud of both from the administration and from the military.

-Turning an economy in decline into one of growth? check

As was pointed out, the economy moves in cycles and after riding high through the mid-late 90's a recession should have been expected. Considered the economic damage caused by 9-11, which compounded the slowdown of the dotcom bubble burst, the economy has proven to be amazingly resilient.

I doubt the Executive branch's fiscal policy is all that influential in the short to medium run (i.e. the past few years). I wouldn't chalk up the US's growth to the current administration any more than I credit the Clinton administration with the growth of the 90's.



-Lowering my taxes at the same time? check

Hooray for low taxes. Nothing like fighting a war ($300 billion and counting!) that you don't have the money to pay for. We are now spending ourselves $450 billion in the hole this year alone, bringing our total public debt to $8.5 trillion dollars.

Somebody has to pay this money back sooner or later. Normally when people borrow money they invest it to increase their productivity, so they can make more money in the future and pay back their loans. Instead, the US has borrowed money and ramped up its consumption, but allowed its investments (education, infrastructure, health care to some extent) to fall into disrepair.

As soon as our financial backers (i.e. the Chinese) decide they can get better returns on their money investing elsewhere (like their own country), the US economy will be up sh!t creek without a paddle.

You may think that a $500 tax refund was good for the US, but really it was a horrible move when combined with the existing state of our public finances and the administration's penchant for engaging in really expensive international endeavors (aka WAR).

[Jobu]

See that's the difference between you and me. I'm an optimist. I believe we can grow our way out of debt with low taxes and hopefully more sensible spending as revenues grow over time.

As for spending on healthcare, eduction, etc, it has grown very rapidly along with everything else way faster than inflation. It's not in disrepair for lack of funds, that's for damn sure. More than half the federal budget is spent on entitlements already.

My tax refund was $300 and my tax cut has amounted to several hundred additional dollars per year. I have since spent a little and invested a lot of that money and turned it into thousands. That's good for the economy and damn good for me personally. I'm now in a higher tax bracket, paying even more in taxes, which means more revenue for the government to pay for those entitlements you cherish.

[annihilation]

See that's the difference between you and me. I'm an optimist. I believe we can grow our way out of debt with low taxes and hopefully more sensible spending as revenues grow over time.

As for spending on healthcare, eduction, etc, it has grown very rapidly along with everything else way faster than inflation. It's not in disrepair for lack of funds, that's for damn sure. More than half the federal budget is spent on entitlements already.

My tax refund was $300 and my tax cut has amounted to several hundred additional dollars per year. I have since spent a little and invested a lot of that money and turned it into thousands. That's good for the economy and damn good for me personally. I'm now in a higher tax bracket, paying even more in taxes, which means more revenue for the government to pay for those entitlements you cherish.

LOL "sensible spending", you think that will ever happen with this government. We will never grow out of our debt, we will grow it larger. Thanks to Iraq, it will get even bigger with no return from that **** hole.

[Durandal]

See that's the difference between you and me. I'm an optimist. I believe we can grow our way out of debt with low taxes and hopefully more sensible spending as revenues grow over time.

I think there is a cap on our growth till we manage some sort of breakthrough not unlike the Industrial Revolution. The problem is that America cannot grow its way out of debt. Between personal debt and national debt we have some in the amount of 20 TRILLION in debt. Literally, our debt is fuel the world's economy. The U.S. consumes something like 40% of the world's produced goods leaving 60% to be consumed by a massive 95% of the rest of the world.

You "hope" we see more sensible spending, but nothing, if you read financial history of this country would suggest this is going to happen.


As for spending on healthcare, eduction, etc, it has grown very rapidly along with everything else way faster than inflation. It's not in disrepair for lack of funds, that's for damn sure. More than half the federal budget is spent on entitlements already.

Actually, Federal money to education both lower and higher has gone down. Part of the problems with No Child Left Behind is that it makes a whole crap load of requirements in regards to hiring and skill sets of teachers but no money to hire the addition folks needed to fill the roles. Some schools were getting double duty out of say a political science teacher also teaching history (especially small rural schools) and suddenly they need to hire a history teacher to teach history.

A big chunk of those social programs (over half) include social security, which is money owed to the people anyways. Yes, the government, technically does NOT have to pay it, but that's what happens when you hide a tax as a social give back program.

[/QUOTE]My tax refund was $300 and my tax cut has amounted to several hundred additional dollars per year. I have since spent a little and invested a lot of that money and turned it into thousands. That's good for the economy and damn good for me personally. I'm now in a higher tax bracket, paying even more in taxes, which means more revenue for the government to pay for those entitlements you cherish.[/QUOTE]

Ultimately, what I see here is a whole lot of arrogance and vanity. You claim that through your investments you turned your money from hundreds into thousands. Possible, but EXTREMELY unlikely. Average growth of low yield low risk stocks is about 5 to 6% give or take. Average growth of higher yield higher risk stuff runs in the 10 to 12% range...roughly, depending on who you use to handle your money. Now, yoou could have a much higher return on your investment if you bought a single stock low, very low, rolled the dice, and then sold out high on a hunch or a tip. All very possible, but again, not likely. If you did, good for you. Unfortunately, most of America does not do that, cannot do that, and should not do that. If Americans are going to waste money you prefer that do so buying "stuff". If they are going to save money and invest it, you want it done safely and securely in general, not on one time crap shoot. With the massive number of funds available out there an individual can grow their money fairly quickly, so long as they keep putting money in.

Right now you should be able to get CDs at 5% maybe a little more if you put in 2500 at a time. A fund like Fidelity's Freedom turns over that and more (depending on how aggressive you want to be) but even the aggressive accounts are diversified enough that an explosion or two in return in a couple funds isn't enough to simply double your money. You are still looking at 8 to 11% growth.

I have no idea how much cash you put in after that 300.00 but that 300.00 alone is not enough to make lots of money to be reinvested into the economy either by spending the interest or taxing it as people cash it in and pay capital gains.

The 300.00 went to buy stuff or pay bills for most of Americans which is simply a short term gain for retailers and manufacturers.

The interest made of of that 300.00 is miniscule at best when we look at taxation and certainly not enough to more than quadruple it in 3 to 6 years at a higher high risk yield.

My point is that, while I agree to the principal of your comments, those comments smack of a certain reality that is not reflected in your comments. We love to talk like we are getting rich fast, but ultimately, the people that get rich are the ones that take big risks (and do not fail like most) or save more than half of what they earn (considering that the average American saves -.5% of their income, I find this unlikely).

[Jobu]

$300 (rebate) + ~$550 (saved on taxes) = $850 the first year alone
Add $550 to that each subsequent year for the last five years.
Factor in the 10-12% gains to my portfolio per year for the last five years.

100's turns into 1000's.

You say spending will never be brought under control so we need higher taxes. Like I said, I'm an optimist.

[Durandal]

Actually, I never said we need higher taxes. In fact, we NEED, lower taxes.

But those mean nothing when as a nation we are investing in almost nothing.

Social Security, in theory is a good investment. Research grants and education financing is a good investment (any science for the most part). Naval procurement to ensure sea lanes stay open and trade flourishes is a good investment.

Spending money, wastefully, trying to rebuild Iraq in the middle of a 4 way fight is NOT a good investment.

Building a bridge in Alaska that costs millions but only 25 people use is a waste.

Spending money to prop up a failed Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum is a waste.

There are lots of ways to get tax dollars and a whole lot more ways to wastefully spend them.

When you consider that the Federal government owes billions in Federal pensions (part of these people's employment, not a social handout) and there is no money in the coffer to cover it OR Social Security, the world becomes a scary place.

[Jobu]

Actually, Federal money to education both lower and higher has gone down.

This is a flat out lie on your part.
Education spending has increased every year under Bush.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

[annihilation]

$300 (rebate) + ~$550 (saved on taxes) = $850 the first year alone
Add $550 to that each subsequent year for the last five years.
Factor in the 10-12% gains to my portfolio per year for the last five years.

100's turns into 1000's.

You say spending will never be brought under control so we need higher taxes. Like I said, I'm an optimist.


No need for higher taxes, more like fair taxes. Cut out all the loopholes in the system. No more overseas tax shelters for corporations and the rich which we loose 70 billion a year in taxes. Insuring everyone pays their fair share. Its unfair that a corporation can place their holdings in cancun and avoid taxes in the US, yet still get protection from this country. Clean up the overall government, there are alot of waste. Primarily in healthcare, untold billions wasted. Lets not forget the war on terror and its blind toss of money. Use that money to pay for new scientific research, promote new industries and pay off our national debt.

[Jobu]

No need for higher taxes, more like fair taxes. Cut out all the loopholes in the system. No more overseas tax shelters for corporations and the rich which we loose 70 billion a year in taxes. Insuring everyone pays their fair share. Its unfair that a corporation can place their holdings in cancun and avoid taxes in the US, yet still get protection from this country. Clean up the overall government, there are alot of waste. Primarily in healthcare, untold billions wasted. Lets not forget the war on terror and its blind toss of money. Use that money to pay for new scientific research, promote new industries and pay off our national debt.

I can agree to all of that except the war on terror part. War was declared on us, not the other way around. We need to take it seriously.

[annihilation]

This is a flat out lie on your part.
Education spending has increased every year under Bush.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf


Im not the best at reading balance sheets but in 2006 the president budgeted 68 billion for education but the 2006 appropriation was for 88 billion. So that means congress raised more money for the program than what bush wanted?

Also if you go soley by the President's budget figures (which i take is what he wants to spend on education, when he passes that to congress)
(in the thousands)
2005-72,240,069
2006-68,803,078
2007-63,377,182

So it looks like to me, the administration every year is trying to lower the overall education budget.

[annihilation]

I can agree to all of that except the war on terror part. War was declared on us, not the other way around. We need to take it seriously.

I do too. But the invasion on Iraq has been a huge sink hole in cash (looking at this financially here). Money that could have been spent better else were. We still have not secured our boarders, we still don't have professional airline security. Yet homeland security is one of the largest growing organizations. Personally I think the money was completely wasted in this event under the disguise of fight terror. We have increased our nation burden and what do we really have to show for it? Osama bin laden is still alive, his whole family is still alive. The terrorists group still run amok and they have more support than ever.

IMO....you fight terrorists groups in the shadows and street corners. Armies are inefficitive in those battles as they are not present in a single nation or willing nation (with the except of afghanistan).

[Dronetek]

You really need to get out more often.There was a huge outporing and it was misused by Bush.Also you need to learn that folks overseas don't have beef with ordinary Americans but they have beef with this govt.A lot of Americans including yourself have a problem distinguishing the two.

I think you have rose colored memorey of the worlds opinion of the US pre 9/11.

[Noble713]

This is a flat out lie on your part.
Education spending has increased every year under Bush.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

Increased spending in nominal dollars, but not real ones.

Compare the % change in spending from 2002 to 2004 to the % change in the CPI over the same timeframe. The spending increases are a little more than 1% annually. Meanwhile inflation 2002-2004 was 1.6, 2.3, 2.7, and 3.4%. http://www.gpec.org/infocenter/Topics/Economy/USInflation.html

I would explain more but I need to go to class.

[annihilation]

Actually, I never said we need higher taxes. In fact, we NEED, lower taxes.

But those mean nothing when as a nation we are investing in almost nothing.

Social Security, in theory is a good investment. Research grants and education financing is a good investment (any science for the most part). Naval procurement to ensure sea lanes stay open and trade flourishes is a good investment.

Spending money, wastefully, trying to rebuild Iraq in the middle of a 4 way fight is NOT a good investment.

Building a bridge in Alaska that costs millions but only 25 people use is a waste.

Spending money to prop up a failed Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum is a waste.

There are lots of ways to get tax dollars and a whole lot more ways to wastefully spend them.

When you consider that the Federal government owes billions in Federal pensions (part of these people's employment, not a social handout) and there is no money in the coffer to cover it OR Social Security, the world becomes a scary place.


Agree.........I imagine a good 20% of the federal budget could be saved. Also there is no incentive for government departments to run lean. They have a budget of x amount this year, if they don't use it all up, then next year there budget is reduced by y amount. So they get shafted and so it forces them also spend more than they might have too. What i think they need to do is promise each department that for x amount of years your budget will stay steady and follow the inflation. Any money that doesn't get spent for that year, 10% gets to placed in a holding account for the department to use in future need (emergency), up to 10% goes out as bonuses for doing a good job, and the rest is returned to the government to be used for debt relief. I know it has some flaws with ability to tampering numbers. But it is a start i guess.

[Jobu]

Since 2001 education spending has more than doubled.

It seems to me that President Bush is trying to get that under control but not succeeding.

You cite the 2007 proposal for $63 billion as if it were low. That's $21 billion more than 5 years ago, or an increase of half of 2001's entire allocation.

I should hope Bush is trying to reign in the runaway spending increases. It's ridiculous.

[annihilation]

I think you have rose colored memorey of the worlds opinion of the US pre 9/11.

But didn't people in Iran hold a vigil to the people of 9/11 and america after the attack? Im not saying they were falling at our feet. But we did have a chance to do something positive and get the whole world together on it. Even if it failed in the end, it would have been a far better route to have taken then the one of lets go into Irak, im telling you there is WMDs....

[annihilation]

I should hope Bush is trying to reign in the runaway spending increases. It's ridiculous.


Your talking about bush, he makes the democrates look like fiscally responsible.


Also education atleast has a benefit, compared to alot of other programs out there.

[Jobu]

Increased spending in nominal dollars, but not real ones.

Compare the % change in spending from 2002 to 2004 to the % change in the CPI over the same timeframe. The spending increases are a little more than 1% annually. Meanwhile inflation 2002-2004 was 1.6, 2.3, 2.7, and 3.4%. http://www.gpec.org/infocenter/Topics/Economy/USInflation.html

I would explain more but I need to go to class.

What world are you living in where spending increased a little more than 1% annually?

2001-2002 increase was 34% from 42 billion to 56 billion.
02-03 was 13%
03-04 was 6%
04-05 was 10%
05-06 was 20%

We've gone from $42 billion in spending to $88 billion in five years.

[Jobu]

Your talking about bush, he makes the democrates look like fiscally responsible.



And yet you just pointed out how he is trying to control spending in the budget.

Hello?

[annihilation]

And yet you just pointed out how he is trying to control spending in the budget.

Hello?


In education, hello the one thing he hates, educating people. Look at the budget of the military, look at the budget of home land defense, look at the budget for medicare with that new bill, look at the new highway bill.

Also aren't you saying that he has increased education spending? So what is it he has increased it or cut it?

[annihilation]

What world are you living in where spending increased a little more than 1% annually?

2001-2002 increase was 34% from 42 billion to 56 billion.
02-03 was 13%
03-04 was 6%
04-05 was 10%
05-06 was 20%

We've gone from $42 billion in spending to $88 billion in five years.

So how do those numbers match up with these?

Also if you go soley by the President's budget figures (which i take is what he wants to spend on education, when he passes that to congress)
(in the thousands)
2005-72,240,069
2006-68,803,078
2007-63,377,182

So it looks like to me, the administration every year is trying to lower the overall education budget.

[Noble713]

What world are you living in where spending increased a little more than 1% annually?

After double-checking the numbers, I realize my mistake: I was interpreting the numbers my calc was spewing out as percentages for some reason. :oops: So 1.126 on my calc is not 1.126% but 12.6%. That's beyond a brain fart, it's a damn brain hemorrhage....

[Durandal]

This is a flat out lie on your part.
Education spending has increased every year under Bush.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

My fault, I did not properly, make my point here...

Yes, over all spending has gone up, it had to...or No Child Left Behind would have failed even more than it has...would have failed big time.

But, this is where it gets weird.

Back, in the early days dollars, in the billions were pared back from the States. I think the total was around 85 Billion give or take. I am working on a business plan right now and do not have the time to go back and look it up. Most of this money was redirected to Homeland Defense/Security. To be honest, I have no idea where it goes now since we have such massive pork bills getting passed the last 4 or 5 years its such a mess of corruption. Anyways, the two core things that money was spent on was education.

Ultimately there was a net loss. The Federal government dolling out more cash directly to schools, but the States giving less since their Federal tit dried up.

Oh...wait....you got suspended...

Nevermind, this is a waste of time now and completely off topic anyways.