0
0

Somebody stop this maniac!


 invite response                
2009 Nov 27, 1:00am   3,495 views  19 comments

by Done!   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/25/news/economy/paying_for_Afghanistan_war/index.htm

Some lawmakers are pushing for a war tax. Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, took part in the latest war council meeting. And Obama is expected to raise the cost issue in his Tuesday evening address at West Point.

Since 2001, close to $1 trillion has been appropriated by Congress - and borrowed by Treasury - to pay for U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service published in September.

Total spending on the global war on terror, including missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, could approach $2 trillion by 2019 depending on the level of military involvement, the CRS reported.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Wednesday told reporters that Obama's address would stress that further engagement in Afghanistan would not last another eight years. Gibbs also characterized the increase in troops as "very, very, very expensive" in terms of potential lives lost and dollars spent.

The amount of tax collected would have to be sufficient to cover the full war costs of the previous year.

The surtax would start at 1% for anyone with taxable income and increase gradually up the income scale to as much as 5% for the highest-income households.

This Bastard is "WORSE" than Regan, this mother fugger is speaking in Neocon speak now.

The first black president to tow the Republican line. Yay! Change!

No not really actually this cowardly Dink, rather than pull out the troops "He promised", and have to bare sole responsibility for the out come in the next decade or three. This sneaky bastard, is making the Republicans an offer they can't refuse. More taxes, for the war mongering effort. He doesn't need any thing from the Republicans there is more than enough Democrats in Washington to pull the troops.
What a coward and freek, put this on the Republicans to demand we pull out of Afghan and Iraq.

And what if the Republicans don't play that game, then what? I'll be paying 1% in taxes, for assholes fighting a war we can't win, because it really doesn't exist, because there's no foreign government that we are in conflict with. Nor has there been in over 7 years.
We're fighting principals and ideas at this point. There isn't even a body of peoples to surrender and call off the war if they wanted to.

Pretty freaking low, this is the lowest yet. Taxing sick Lying bastard!

#politics

Comments 1 - 19 of 19        Search these comments

1   tatupu70   2009 Nov 27, 2:10am  

Politically, it is an inpired idea. Making the neo-cons actually pay for their war...

fyi--Obama promised to get out of Iraq, not Afghanistan. He wanted to put forth more effort there because the previous administration had focused on Iraq and let Afghanistan get worse.

2   Done!   2009 Nov 27, 3:46am  

As an Independent, when I see crap like this where I have to be taxed 1% on crap like this when the Left has the political capitol to just make decisions with out these politics.
It gives credibility to the Right when they call you taxing, blood sucking, money spending savages.

Wars bankrupt countries and it is bankrupting ours. It will bankrupt the American people if they pay for it, just as easy.

Obama started out with the right idea, of entering office with a blank slate on the World stage, with a benefit of the doubt of not being "GWB". He could have pulled out of Iraq, and the rest of the world would have treated it as something that happened a long time ago.

It would have infuriated the Right, and they would have protested with scripture of rapture, but the would have survived the shock. It's not like he and they lack the political clout to make good, and use diplomacy to resolve much of conflict there. ( I mean besides them being pissed of and livid about us bombing the shit out Weddings, Funerals, and Family Reunions for the last 8 years.

The solution is very simple. We're there because there trying to beat Democracy into them. If there is no one there that wants to or can defend their ideas. Then they as well as we should pull out.

Then just Bomb the crap out of them, every coupla years, when they are acting up and the Presidents approval ratings are down. Hell that's a helluva lot cheaper and actually accomplishes goals.

3   elliemae   2009 Nov 27, 6:44am  

Nomo, you're especially snarky today. It's funny.

4   nope   2009 Nov 27, 4:01pm  

This isn't about "the Republicans" -- this is a strategy to sway public opinion firmly in the "pull out" column, which is the only sensible thing to do at this point.

Unfortunately, if he actually did pull out now he'd get raked across the coal in the court of public opinion, mostly with bullshit about not supporting the troops, or letting "the terrorists" win or some such nonsense.

We weren't able to get out of Vietnam until the public wanted out. It's going to be the same deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. As long as there are delusional fools and xenophobic morons who think the war is worth fighting, we're going to be stuck there.

Instead of a tax, though, which applies to the wrong group of people (the majority of wealthy people are opposed to the war), why not mandate that all "defense" spending come from the sale of war bonds? We did this in years past, so it's not like it's some radical new concept.

If you support the war, buy the bonds. If you don't support it, don't buy.

This way, if the public stops supporting the war, the money stops flowing and it's a clear sign to get out.

5   Done!   2009 Nov 27, 11:39pm  

SO the lesson from this is, Democrats are such petty round about liars to get their policies through. Then when Lies fail they resort to Bullying the tax payers to get their way. OK it's just more food for thought, as to why "ANYBODY" clearly isn't always a better option. When the maniac in office will do just fine.

After this it will take recent memories to die many years ago, before a Democrat will be president again. The American people don't like being manipulated. We prefer a president that just does and owns up to it.

Of course the lefties are far to smittenly enamored by this kind of dishonesty. Sarah Palin doesn't have to campaign, Obama is doing it for her. So effective, the GOP is draging Chenny out of dry storage, to offer up as presidential Scrap.

6   Honest Abe   2009 Nov 28, 1:32am  

Well, I guess financially destroying a country is, technically, change.

7   Done!   2009 Nov 28, 1:50am  

Nomograph says

Tenouncetrout says

As an Independent

You strike me primarily as a contrarian. Contrarians tend point out everything wrong, but seldom have much in the way of solutions.
Tenouncetrout says

we should pull out.

If only your father had done that, we wouldn’t be having this inane discussion )

Typical Homograph

8   bob2356   2009 Nov 28, 4:04am  

Honest Abe says

Well, I guess financially destroying a country is, technically, change.

Paying for the war instead of borrowing more money for the war would be destroying the country financially?? Did I miss something here? True we should not have gone to Iraq in the first place, true Obama should have pulled out day 1 of his presidency, but at least not racking up more debt is a good thing.

9   Honest Abe   2009 Nov 28, 4:31am  

I didn't say anything about war.

10   Done!   2009 Nov 29, 1:50am  

"but at least not racking up more debt is a good thing."

What American story are you following?

11   bob2356   2009 Nov 29, 2:50am  

Tenouncetrout says

“but at least not racking up more debt is a good thing.”
What American story are you following?

The story that was the point of the post in the first place talking about a tax to pay for the war in Afghanistan rather than continue to borrow money.

Honest Abe says

Well, I guess financially destroying a country is, technically, change.

Honest Abe says

I didn’t say anything about war.

The whole post was about war and a tax to pay for it. What were you talking about?

12   Done!   2009 Nov 29, 4:02am  

"The story that was the point of the post in the first place talking about a tax to pay for the war in Afghanistan rather than continue to borrow money."

Well I don't know about you, but I only One pot, where I pull my dollars out of.
Collectively we are all paying the National debt, and we are paying the taxes.

You can put it here, or put it there, we are still paying for it.

War with out the benefit of a boon to Private manufacturing and industry. Closed no bid contracts, and Crony appointees. We're still paying for a war to fight a man that we haven't had physical proof of his live status, in over 7 years. And we're still racking up National debt. No matter how you slice it.

13   4X   2009 Nov 29, 2:30pm  

Nomograph says

Excellent. Once the pro-war Republicans are forced to actually pay for it, war will suddenly become much less palatable. Kinda like how $5 per gallon gasoline made giant SUV’s seem like not such a good idea.

Yep, I bet all of these so-called conservatives were pro-war 8 years ago.

14   4X   2009 Nov 29, 2:33pm  

Tenouncetrout says

“The story that was the point of the post in the first place talking about a tax to pay for the war in Afghanistan rather than continue to borrow money.”
Well I don’t know about you, but I only One pot, where I pull my dollars out of.
Collectively we are all paying the National debt, and we are paying the taxes.
You can put it here, or put it there, we are still paying for it.
War with out the benefit of a boon to Private manufacturing and industry. Closed no bid contracts, and Crony appointees. We’re still paying for a war to fight a man that we haven’t had physical proof of his live status, in over 7 years. And we’re still racking up National debt. No matter how you slice it.

I say tax it so we can see just how popular this war is.

Obama is on to something here because taxes will decrease the popularity of the war, making it even easier for him to pull out without any blowback from Republicans who will scream "Coward" and "He didnt finish the job". Republicans will be forced to sit quietly as the people demand a pullout, job well done Mr. Obama.

One step closer to earning another conservative vote in 2012.

15   nope   2009 Nov 30, 1:53pm  

staynumz says

I disagree. We had a small window in the 90’s to right the ship. Klinton WITH a rep congress worked fairly well. The problems happen when one party has complete control. Gridlock is a good thing.

Oh bullshit.

Things were good under Clinton for reasons that have nothing to do with the makeup of the offices. Things were good because there was a massive new technology (the internet) that was boosting everyone's fortunes. We had 8 years of relative peace (a few relatively cheap military actions notwithstanding). Towards the end we had a big fat bubble too, and everyone loves a good bubble.

Today we have two wars and a massive recession. You really want gridlock with that going on?

16   4X   2009 Nov 30, 3:30pm  

Kevin says

staynumz says


I disagree. We had a small window in the 90’s to right the ship. Klinton WITH a rep congress worked fairly well. The problems happen when one party has complete control. Gridlock is a good thing.

Oh bullshit.
Things were good under Clinton for reasons that have nothing to do with the makeup of the offices. Things were good because there was a massive new technology (the internet) that was boosting everyone’s fortunes. We had 8 years of relative peace (a few relatively cheap military actions notwithstanding). Towards the end we had a big fat bubble too, and everyone loves a good bubble.
Today we have two wars and a massive recession. You really want gridlock with that going on?

Yet, when it comes to using the scapel for cost cutting meausures it seems the Dems cant come together. Healthcare is at a slow crawl, jobs are being lost, homes are unnaffordable and we continue to spend 50B on a war that everyone agrees has no purpose.

Here is how we have spent so far:

1. 8k Tax Credit - Spending
2. Recovery Act - Spending
3. Increased Troops - Spending
4. Bank Bailouts - Spending

I dont think any of us can name one bill that involved cutting programs?.......outside of Schwarzenegger cutting welfare to work.

17   nope   2009 Nov 30, 4:09pm  

Name ONE significant program that republicans are willing to cut that will make a god damn shred of difference in the budget situation.

There are exactly three programs that account for virtually all of our budget:

1. The military
2. Medicare
3. Social Security.

Republicans are OUTRAGED at the mere suggestion that any one of those three be cut at all (they're even throwing fits about efforts to simply *CUT COSTS* of medicare).

A "scalpel" isn't going to matter AT ALL. You could completely eliminate every single other federal program, from food stamps to parks to highways, and we'd STILL have a massive debt.

So please, tell me again how a gridlock is going to help the situation.

18   pinnacle   2009 Dec 1, 5:58am  

Nobody ever mentions the fact that the Air Force has been a lot more money to expand operations in Afghanistan. We are undoubtedly ramping up the bombing campaign at a cost of about
50 billion dollars a year. I noticed that on November 7, 2009 the official air force website
suddenly stopped reporting on air support operations altogether because they apparently don't want anyone to be aware of the increase in bombing in Afghanistan.
For the previous five years they posted a daily account of air attacks and bomb usage.
Even Bush was willing to put out those numbers, but not now.

19   nope   2009 Dec 1, 2:57pm  

staynumz says

Because gridlock is the only hope to stop runaway spending by the dems. Healthcare for example. Huge entitlement program that will make medicare look like tip money. Cap and trade. Huge boondoggle on fuzzy science that will raise the price of energy substancially.

The problem was the dems did not work thier end of the gridlock when boosh was in office. Hence we have bank bailouts and stimulus money as far as the eye can see.

Are you really this dense? If we change nothing from what is happening right now -- what's already on the books, what's already been passed, current tax rates -- we will be even more screwed.

Deadlock is not going to help, and the claim that it ever has is a lie. There's only one really good example of a deadlocked system that functioned well, and that was the Clinton administration, which did not succeed because of the deadlock but rather because of events that had nothing to do with politics or government.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions