No more Sapphire for this boy. It hurts the bones. I only pull it off the shelf for a crazy Canadian friend when he visits. Those guys...
And the 70s are long gone.
Yes, I personally made a crapload more this year if buying 3 new cars and giving away one in the last 8 months didn't give it away. The Bozo had nothing to do with it. From a very real standpoint he already hurt a significant part of my business. I worked smart, worked my ass off and made some big commissions. I've left a good chunk in the corp to make sure my girls are going to be taken care of next year. The Bozo is going to cost me much more of it in the long haul.
For those still in denial of the costs, the following is hot off CNN. I worked the math on my part before. This is the cost on average:
"The committee calculated that the average cost of both wars for a family of four would be $20,900 from 2002 to 2008. The cost for a family of four would go up to $46,400 from 2002 to 2017, the committee said."
Since I'm in the top 5-10% of income, guess what my personal share is? From memory, since the top 10% pay about 70% of taxes I'm ballparking it at $324,800+ and I was upset when I thought it was about 1/2 of that... That is a lot of money. So much for having a good year. All because Bush is a liar.
Say what you want about political parties being the same. There is little doubt in my mind that we wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for the manipulations of Bush and Cheny. There never were WMD, there never was Taliban, there never was a credible threat from Iraq. We should have stopped in Afganistan. I couldn't give a rat's ass that Saddam was an evil dictator. There have been plenty before and are plenty floating around now. That in not justification for invasion. Bush and his administration has made the problem much worse. Plus he cost me and everyone in this country a crapload of moola anyway you cut it. Oh, lets not forget the great personal cost to the family's of our Vets even if they make it home uninjured.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.
A soldier with the 101st Airborne Division guards an oil refinery near Baiji, Iraq.
1 of 2 That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs that the White House already has requested so far from Congress, the Democratically-controlled Joint Economic Committee said.
The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.
The higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, the lost productivity due to that borrowing, higher oil prices, and the cost of taking care of wounded veterans, the committee said.
The committee calculated that the average cost of both wars for a family of four would be $20,900 from 2002 to 2008. The cost for a family of four would go up to $46,400 from 2002 to 2017, the committee said.
"For every dollar we spend directly in Iraq, we're going to pay another dollar for the indirect, but immediate, costs of the war," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said. "We of the baby boom generation and our children and grandchildren will be paying for this war for a very long time to come."
"We cannot afford this war -- $12 billion dollars a month?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said. "We just can't. We can't continue." Watch Sen. Reid say 'we can't buy victory' »
Schumer said finances will become an significant factor in the ongoing debate regarding the course of the conflicts.
Joint Ecocomic Committee report on total cost of wars (PDF)
Poll: Opposition to war at all-time high
CNN Spotlight: Iraq: Transition of Power
"The cost of the war is becoming the $800-billion-dollar gorilla in the room when it comes to opposition in the war," he said. "It is becoming the first thing that people mention after the loss of life when they're opposed to this war."
"And the people who mention it, many of them, are not people who were against the war in the past," Schumer added.
Republicans, who said they were not included in the preparation of the report, said the country has little choice but continue to bear the costs of the war.
"What's their alternative?" Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, asked of the Democrats. "Should we not fund veterans? Should we not send MRAPs [armored personal carriers] to Iraq? Not fund the GI Bill?
"And how much will oil cost if the progress in Iraq is reversed and al Qaeda shuts down the oil deliveries? What will that do to the markets?" Stewart asked.
Stewart called the report "a Democrat report, prepared by the head of the Democrat campaign committee" -- a reference to Schumer, the head of the party's effort to add Senate seats in 2008.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused the Democrats of releasing the report for partisan reasons and to "muddy the waters" after a series of positive reports from Iraq -- including a reduction in violence, increased economic capacity of the country, and signs of continued political reconciliation "from the bottom up."
"It's positive and we hope it is a trend that will take hold," Perino