Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Cost of Muellers witch hunt


FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4741
Date:
Cost of Muellers witch hunt


How much military gear could we have gotten for what we spent on the Mueller probe?

Nate Madden ˇ April 19, 2019  
    Font Size A A A
U.S. Military members
gorodenkoff | Getty Images

Almost two years and around $30 million in taxpayers hard-earned money later, the Mueller probe yielded a conclusion that many Americans knew all along: That there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

And while Democrats gear up to use the findings as fuel for their next impeachment push, the reports conclusions raise another question: What else could we have spent that money on?

One conservative congressman has an answer. Freshman House Freedom Caucus member Mark Green, R-Tenn., tweeted out a list of military supplies that could have been purchased with the probes estimated $30 million price tag.

Rep. Mark Green
 
@RepMarkGreen
 
 

Total cost of the Mueller report to taxpayers: $30,000,000

How much that could have provided our military:
- 1,558,442 days' rations per soldier
or...
- 443,459 uniforms
- 230,769 boots
- 93,168 helmets
(1/2)

 
92 people are talking about this
 

 

Rep. Mark Green
 
@RepMarkGreen
 

Total cost of the Mueller report to taxpayers: $30,000,000

How much that could have provided our military:
- 1,558,442 days' rations per soldier
or...
- 443,459 uniforms
- 230,769 boots
- 93,168 helmets
(1/2)

Rep. Mark Green
 
@RepMarkGreen
 

- 87,783 sets of nuclear and biological weapon protective gear
- 51,903 walkie-talkies
- 51,195 M-16 rifles
- 29,097 fully equipped rucksacks
- 18,519 sets of body armor
- 136 new Humvees
- 46 new MRAPs
(2/2)

 
47 people are talking about this
 

 

Green is a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger and special operations flight surgeon. According to his reckoning the American people could have purchased over 1.5 million meals for troops or almost half a million uniforms or almost 20,000 sets of lifesaving body armor.

A spokesman for Greens office told Blaze Media that the calculations were based off the costs outlined in a 2002 NBC report from the War on Terror while the cost for boots came from the current online retail cost of this pairof military boots.



__________________
Drive it like you stole it


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Is the military presently underfunded?

Has any calculated how much we could have bought for the military with what we are spending on the Trump tax cuts?

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4741
Date:

I don't know, look it up or research it yourself.

Other than you most are very happy with the tax cuts,

__________________
Drive it like you stole it


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Everyone except deficit hawks, which used to be you guys.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Everyone except deficit hawks, which used to be you guys.


 

 

Deficit is about how much is spent....when you spend more than the revenue from taxation brings in the result is deficit spending which adds to our debt...

 

The government should be heavily constrained on how much it can tax...then it is the job of congress to only spend what we can afford under that taxation...

 

you do not raise taxes to resolve the deficit...you have to cut spending...

 

neither side has done well with cutting spending....

 

that was the big problem under Reagan...He allowed Congress to spend unfettered...and in doing so tripled our national debt and by the time Reagan had left office only the top 3% still had any part of his earlier tax cuts...

 

 

 

 



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

There is an often floated idea of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Where the Federal government would have to operate like the individual states and balance their budget annually. In principal I would support such a thing, just so long as the way the balancing of the budget is done is a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases (not just cuts). Of course in times of dire need like WW2, Congress could vote to temporarily suspend said rule for things that a super-majority agree is truly an emergency.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

There is an often floated idea of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Where the Federal government would have to operate like the individual states and balance their budget annually. In principal I would support such a thing, just so long as the way the balancing of the budget is done is a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases (not just cuts). Of course in times of dire need like WW2, Congress could vote to temporarily suspend said rule for things that a super-majority agree is truly an emergency.


 

As long as YOU understand that increased revenue does not mean an increased tax rate....

 

The tax rate should be stable....progressive but stable....

 

Those at the top should pay more...and they do...they always have....

 

Those at the bottom should have skin in the game also and too many do not....

 

what we need is an amendment to the EITC...stating the credit can never exceed the tax liability of the individual...

 

That would likely correct the deficit over night....



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

How about creating a fee on certain things, like the derivatives and credit default swaps that blew up the economy last time? Even a 2% fee on each of those would probably go a long way toward putting us back in the black.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

How about creating a fee on certain things, like the derivatives and credit default swaps that blew up the economy last time? Even a 2% fee on each of those would probably go a long way toward putting us back in the black.


 

 

IMHO credit default swaps should be illegal....

 

commercial banks should never have been allowed to sell off their debt to investment banks...which is how that vehicle was created to begin with...

 

it is ALSO that same issue that put the TAX PAYER on the hook via FDIC protections on the commercial side...



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Amen brother, they probably should be illegal I agree. But until they are, maybe Uncle Sam can charge a percentage on them to balance the budget without having to raise income taxes. It sounds like a bipartisan solution to me.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Amen brother, they probably should be illegal I agree. But until they are, maybe Uncle Sam can charge a percentage on them to balance the budget without having to raise income taxes. It sounds like a bipartisan solution to me.


 

 

Again balancing the budget is ALL about spending cuts....

 

and no that does not mean Social Security cuts as those have no impact on the deficit at all....

 

nor do cuts to Medicare neither of those programs are funded through the discretionary budget....they have their own dedicated tax....

 

there are MANY things our government could stop spending money on that would more than balance the budget....only those in congress do not want to make those cuts...

 

 You have many times knocked Donald Trump changes to taxation....

 

They were the correct changes...

 

they were not targeted at billionaires...

 

capital gain tax (corporate taxation) does not HURT the billionaire or effect their profit as those cost are ALL passed along to the consumer....

 

what the corporate tax cuts did was bring companies back inside the US....companies that have been fleeing since Clinton was in office...

 

The FICA surplus that disappeared in 2015, went away because of lack of participation in the work force....

 

you do not have to raise taxes to increase revenue, simply tax the same, but increase the number of people participating in the work force...revenue goes up...

 

while we did raise the cap on FICA slightly...(as we should have) that alone was not near enough to bring back the surplus...all the added jobs when companies returned....that is why the FICA surplus is BACK...

 

These are the fine points democrats like to ignore as it does not jive with their narrative...



-- Edited by Nuffan on Saturday 20th of April 2019 01:29:25 PM



-- Edited by Nuffan on Saturday 20th of April 2019 05:40:40 PM

__________________


FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4741
Date:

It's so easy to spend someone else money, just ask AOC

__________________
Drive it like you stole it


No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

Shawnee_B wrote:

It's so easy to spend someone else money, just ask AOC


 

This is WHY the answer is ALWAYS to cut spending....

 

It is TOO EASY to spend the money of others....

 

Cutting spending is actually HARD to do...

 

 

The predicted cost of the tax cuts was well over one trillion dollars in 2018...however the increased revenue by adding to the work force made the actual deficit under 800 billion...over 400 billion below the predicted amount...

 

the difference is the increased revenue due to added participation...now democrats want to look and say had we not cut taxes we would have had much higher revenues...we also would not have seen the increased participation which is better across the longer term...

 

taxing less is better over all...it keeps growth up, and over the course of a few years the additional revenue from that participation growth will out weigh the initial loss from the lower tax rate...

 

now if we can get the congress to take the next step since we have the tax rate at a good level adjust spending to that and walla balanced budget with the LOWER tax rates but increasing participation rates

 

The bottom 10% in America tend to live better than lower 50% anywhere else...

 

Powerstroker needs to embrace we should spend our energy with regulation to make default swaps on commercially backed securities illegal, not taxing the transactions...

 

It is TOO EASY to justify taking money from other people...and democrats have a bad habit of using any EXCUSE to take MORE...

 



__________________


FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4741
Date:

How could we ever get them to cut spending! I can't see it happen, both sides are terrible. We all see it and know it, they have to know it but spend like mad anyway. Just print more. Or like AOC on the $93billion green deal, "just pay it"

__________________
Drive it like you stole it
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard