April 7, 2008

Yeah, but how much is it costing ME?

The incredibly fruitless and costly quagmire in Iraq, that is.

Find out here.

Also note that you can drill down and calculate how much it's costing by city, congresional district, or state, and what that figure would provide if not spent on war.

For example, the "war" on terror is costing taxpayers in:

Moline: $84.2 million dollars

The 17th congressional district (represented by Phil Hare): $1.1 BILLION dollars

The state of Illinois: 28.3 BILLION dollars

This represents only funds approved for the war in Iraq to date and not future spending proposals.

Is it worth it?

And McCain and the other trogs STILL want to make tax breaks for millionaires permanent?


Also input the amount you paid in federal income tax and find out the breakdown of how it was spent using this gizmo.

An example:

If you paid $30,000 in income taxes, of that amount:

$12,600 goes to Past and Current Military
$6,600 goes to Health (whatever that means, I suppose subsidized research, the CDC, etc.)
$3,000 goes to Interest on Non-Military Debt
$2,700 goes to Anti-Poverty Programs
$1,200 goes to Education, Training & Social Services
$1,200 goes to Government & Law Enforcement
$900 goes to Housing & Community Development
$900 goes to Environment, Energy & Science
$600 goes to Agriculture, Commerce and Transportation
$300 goes to International Relations

These figures are always interesting because the reveal the false propaganda spread for years by the right trying to convince people that just the opposite is true. Many people believe that most of their tax dollars are spent on social services for the poor, which for some reason they detest, when in reality, a relatively small proportion of tax dollars are spent for such purposes.


At 4/11/2008 12:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, under your stats that would equal out to $4554 per household. This just shows that you are as out of it as the people that give us the line that the surge is working.
You are both full of your it for your own propoganda.

At 4/12/2008 12:08 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

First of all, how do you arrive at that figure? And besides that, you're completely ignoring ALL federal taxes that originate in this area.

Secondly, it's not MY "propaganda", as any idiot can see. I didn't produce the figures.

I don't know what methodology was used in arriving at those figures, but it could be that they simply took state stats on total taxes paid and divided the total bill for the war in that way, then similarly divided it down into congressional districts, and so on.

I'd be more inclined to believe the figures provided by the site I mentioned than the one provided by yourself who apparently thinks it's better not to mention how you came up with the figures lest it be shot down.

Again, I think you're simply in denial about just how much this is costing this country.

By the time you factor in the trillions of dollars in debet owed to China and other countries, I'm sure that the figures cited on the website are much closer to fact than yours, which again, apparently you pulled out of thin air.

At 4/12/2008 7:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TID, Anon pointed something out that is correct - why the issue?

Any time that someone more conservative than you makes a comment, you immediately dismiss it by saying, "you followed the neo-con ideology/ stats again."

It appears as though you have blindly followed someone else's stats - and were wrong.

At 4/13/2008 1:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

total bill/number of households in Moline=

You should have paid more attention in remedial math Dope.

At 4/13/2008 4:35 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

First of all, just how do you deduce that they're figures are "True", as you so casually state?

Why do you think they're true?

Because you said so?

And if they're not true, as I doubt they are, then my comment made perfect sense.

Really now, if you want to attack me for something, try to at least have a point with something to back it up.

I think his (your) figure is a lie that they made up or arrived at by some faulty method.

I asked them to provide their source.

Obviously if it was an actual figure, that should be easy, right?

They couldn't do it.

But yet you somehow think I'm in the wrong for asking someone to show that they didn't just pull a number out of their ass.

And yes, every time someone writes in saying that something I wrote or posted is wrong, and they throw out a number with nothing to back it up as proof, then yes, I will call them on it.


Try harder next time.

At 4/13/2008 4:54 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Again, it's a shame you can't figure this out on your own, let alone provide the actual SOURCE of your numbers.

And sadly, you're so lame that you blame it on my math skills while not providing any numbers to do the math with.

A real bright light in the night there.

Where do you get the number of households in Moline? Make it up?

Do you think that households are the only entities paying federal taxes? Consider gas taxes, etc?

You don't know what you're saying, can't or won't provide your source, and as such, shouldn't be believed.

P.S. I made it through Differential Equations and Calculus II with A's and B's several years after doing horribly in math in High School. I kinda know a little about math.

Don't assume everyone took remedial math based on your own experience.

At 4/16/2008 11:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

$84,200,000/18,489= $4,554
1. City of Moline gave me the number of households that they have 18,489
2. You gave me the taxpayers cost. $84,200,000
3. There is no other way of saying it but to say that each household not individually but collectively. The mean is $4,554 per household.

Your the math whizz you explain it how you see it Euclid.

At 4/16/2008 7:56 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Slice it up all you want. Your numbers are no more, and likely less, reliable than the ones the web site provided.

"Euclid"? Thanks for tossing out the name of "the father of Geometry", but I'm not sure how figuring out the relationships between sizes, shapes, and angles would be of any help in this.

Evidently math (and history) isn't your strong suit.

The point remains, whether you want to believe your dubious figures or the ones from the web site. YOU and everyone else is paying one hell of a lot of money to support our gargantuan military complex.

And paying many times more than you do for any social programs. You're paying vastly more to buy weapons of mass destruction and train and equip people to use them to to kill other people, and damn little to improve the quality of life and health and education of your fellow Americans.

At 4/17/2008 10:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am glad that you know how to use the Internet to find out who Euclid is. Euclid is widely known by mathmatitions as the most four of all mathmatitions so congratulations on looking him up. Your inability to explain what part of my numbers you call dubious. Since you supplied the 84.2 million. That number must be OK with you. Since the city of Moline supplied the number of households in their fine city this must be the number that you call dubious. As the equation is so basic as to have no owner and I am assuming that division is an acceptable means to find the product. I feel that your arguement is clearly a straw man arguement which you seem to be the father of.
Have you ever admitted that you or your sources could be dubiou? Of course not. You could gain yourself a bit of credability by at least telling the audience what part of my equation that you have fault with.
Looking forward to your dubious reply.

At 4/17/2008 3:58 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Whatever numbnuts.

I knew who Euclid was without having to look it up. If I hadn't, why would I even know that you'd made a stupid mistake? Big freaking deal.

I don't doubt the household number is somewhere in the ballpark. But of course you've missed my point entirely.

Give it up.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home