ramblins of buddy don: cuple of thangs

did ye catch that story bout the irs targetin poor folk n holdin back thar reefunds on a counta suspishun they mite be fraudulant? thar after wum hi-rollers:

Her staff's sample of frozen returns found that the average reported income was about $13,000 and the refund due was about $3,500.

About three-quarters of those affected were employed parents who applied for the earned-income tax credit, under which all income and Social Security taxes can be returned and, in some cases, a payment made.

The credit is a kind of negative income tax, first advocated by Milton Friedman, the Nobel-winning economist, and championed by President Ronald Reagan as the government's best program to encourage the poor to improve their circumstances through work.

Ms. Olson's report noted that in recent years, Congress has given the I.R.S. more than $875 million to investigate suspected fraud in the $32 billion tax credit program. Ms. Olson has repeatedly said that Congressional estimates of rampant fraud appear to have little or no basis in fact.

She said that in cases where frozen refunds were later issued, the delay was typically more than eight months, which she said was a hardship on the poor taxpayers who had filed proper tax returns.

makes sense to go whar the money is, witch ye woodnt wonta bother folk wurkin fer cash by treatin em thisaway:

The advocate, Nina Olson, said the I.R.S. devoted vastly more resources to pursuing questionable refunds sought by the poor - which under the highest estimate is $9 billion - than to the $100 billion in taxes not paid each year by people who work for cash and either fail to file tax returns or understate their income.

then ye mite wunder how much that war in iraq is settin us back. whenever we wuz gittin reddy to go in, we wuz promissd twoodnt cost much. ye kin git a list of quotes on how much twood cost here. heres a small seeleckshun of whut wuz claimed:

• mitch daniels claimed:

  On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as “very, very high” and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion.

• don rumsfeld had this perdickshun:

  “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”

• richard armitage:

  “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.”

• paul wolfowitz:

  “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

• glenn hubbard:

  “Costs of any such intervention would be very small.”

we dun figgerd out that taint easy to perdick the futchur jes frum watchin our gummint tell us whuts a'gone happen n then seein that they aint no better than a horrorscope, so taint no sprize that they guessd rong on how much twood cost – Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion:

The cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion after factoring in long-term healthcare for wounded US veterans, rebuilding a worn-down military, and accounting for other unforeseen bills and economic losses, according to a new analysis to be presented today in Boston.

The estimate by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes far exceeds projections made by the Bush administration.
The figure is more than four times what the war was expected to cost through 2006 -- around $500 billion, according to congressional budget data.

The new study is billed as a detailed analysis not only of the potential costs of sustaining the operation in Iraq for at least several more years, but also the expenses likely to be incurred by taxpayers long after US troops withdraw.
The government will have costly obligations to a new class of veterans, be forced to make new investments in stressed military ranks thinned by multiple tours of duty, and withstand the enduring impact of the war on the nation's overall financial outlook.

For example, the study attributes a portion of the increase in oil prices -- $5 per barrel -- to instability in the Middle East caused by the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and sparked a bloody insurgency.

It estimates that the shock to the oil industry has already added at least $25 billion to the price tag of the conflict.

The analysis also attempts to account for the war's impact on the ballooning federal deficit, its ripple effects on overall economic growth and investment, and losses in productivity.

corse, we kin afford it, rite? we gut all that exter revenoo cummin in frum lowerin taxes n gittin the voodoo economicks a'wurkin fer us, so our grandchildren kin probly sholder the burden. heck fire, thar lackly to thank us fer lettin em hep out!