Proposed new WAR TAX

Discussion in 'Economics' started by jorgez, Nov 30, 2009.

  1. jorgez

    jorgez

    Afghan surge will need war tax: pols

    By CHARLES HURT

    Last Updated: 11:18 AM, November 30, 2009

    Posted: 3:07 AM, November 30, 2009

    WASHINGTON -- On the eve of President Obama's announcement of plans for a troop build-up in Afghanistan, lawmakers in both parties warned that the White House is taking on too much and spending way too much.

    "The problem is that you can have the best policy in the world, but if you don't have the tools to implement it, it isn't worth a beanbag," said Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who recently recommended a "war tax" if the United States is going to continue military operations.

    Adding troops without better cooperation from nations such as Pakistan and without proper funding is "a fool's errand," Obey said on CNN yesterday.

    Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) seemed open to the idea of a war tax.

    "I think we will have to pay for it," he said. "We may wish to discuss higher taxes to pay for it."

    But Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added that in any event, it would not be wise to raise taxes to pay for more war while imposing enormous new taxes to pay for the Democrats' government-run health-insurance plan.

    "The war is terribly important. Jobs and our economy are terribly important. So this may be an audacious suggestion," Richard Lugar said.

    "But I would suggest we put aside the health-care debate until next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change, and talk now about the essentials, the war and money."

    Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) quickly responded that Lugar was not "making sense."

    "The health-care debate is essential to our economic future," Reed said. "To stop now would be stopping on the edge of significant reform."

    Obama will deliver a speech tomorrow night at West Point, laying out his strategy for sending more than 30,000 additional troops to fight and to train others in Afghanistan.

    -----------------------------------------
    Excellent idea as it clearly demonstrates commitment.
     
  2. ALL BULLSHIT! We are up to our eyes in debt now... we can't afford ANYTHING!

    We can't win the war on terror... they are spread too thin, we don't know where to attack to eliminate them.. even if we did, they'd just move and spread out even further.

    We should let everybody fight their own battles and bring our troops home to defend our borders as necessary. We can afford to do no other... :( :(

    The Romans went broke trying to defend their "vast empire"... we're doing the same as "policeman to the world", trying to fight a nebulous terrorist enemy.
     
  3. the1

    the1

    What happened to the "withdraw by 2009 plan?"

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4WYTKj8pU5M&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4WYTKj8pU5M&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
     
  4. idiotic.

    Defense of the realm - including war - is the responsibility of the government, as outlined in the constitution. Defense spending is a paltry fraction of all government spending - including the increases resulting from war.

    If government stops robbing productive members of society to fund politicians' pet entitlement programs, we could afford to go to war with the whole world.

    Or, better yet, we could all live better spending our own money.
     
  5. jorgez

    jorgez

    But the decision has already been taken, so don't you want to see the job through to the end.
    Otherwise it is very hard on the troops losing their lives and their limbs, and their peace of mind, knowing there is no support from home.
     

  6. there is no such thing as WAR ON TERROR

    it is just an excuse to keep fueling the industrial military complex with trillions of dollar and justify occupying foreign countries and secure natural resources at expense of human lives and pain of thousands of people.
     
  7. the1

    the1

    What the US Military doesn't seem to get - or maybe they do - is war in the Middle East is a way of life. Wars in Western Countries are viewed as a temporary thing but in the Middle East they are born to wage war and will never stop waging war. The war on terror is not a winnable war.

     
  8. War is not free. If Americans want is policing the world and fighting permawars, There should be a war tax.

    Maybe when people have to pay a special War tax folks will not be in such a rush to go and have stupid wars like the Iraq war, or permawars etc...


    No free lunch, War has to be paid in blood or in taxes.


    Better yet, why not withdrawal from the world and stop fighting wars and protecting other nations on our dime.

    Go back to a neutral stance.
     
  9. You think we AMERICANS want that? WRONG! BUSH WANTED THAT... he wanted to be known as a "war president"... he also wanted the Iraq war to be his diversion from the economy for the '04, election.

    BUSH sold us all down the river for his own personal agenda... he deserves to ROT IN HELL.. right next to Obama... :mad: :mad:

    If we took a vote... (A) More war, but you have to pay higher taxes for it, or (b) STOP our participation in the war...stop our paying to be "policeman to the world", bring the troops home to defend our own borders, and save $1TRILLION, annually"... what do you think we Americans would vote for??
     
  10. What is "the end," though? That's the problem. I can only see us winning if we gave the general all the troops/support he wanted and let him fight however he wanted (i.e., throw diplomacy/politically-correct warfare out the window). That will never happen, especially under Obama.

    But even if it did, we have to leave at some point. Does anyone think Afghanistan will fall in love with our "democracy" (or maybe soft socialism in this day in age) and live happily ever after? That's one of the most chaotic regions of the world, and no one has ever tamed it. It will be back to a combination of anarchy and totalitarian/radical Islam rule shortly after we leave.
     
    #10     Nov 30, 2009