Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I don't get this at all. Why would there be any revenue increases "corresponding" to amounts we spend in Iraq? They're entirely separate. I can understand that it's possible there will revenue increases elsewhere that would cancel out the Iraq expenditures. But that doesn't mean that the possible Iraq expenditure doesn't matter to our deficit reduction models. C'mon, you're smarter than this.
|
Because, as many on this board always remind me, the entire $50B will go to Halliburton, which pays corporate income tax to the fed. They also will likely need to employ additional employees, many of which will be US citizens and pay income tax to the fed. Finally, Halliburton will need materials and will need to pay sales tax on the materials to the fed. Obviously this will not cancel out the outlays, but it does mitigate them.
Threaded Mode