PDA

View Full Version : I can only wonder...



bullypulpit
10-07-2007, 06:56 PM
...Why...If the war in Iraq is so crucial to America's security...If the greater "global war on terror", is so essential to the the future of American society...Why aren't Americans being asked to pay for it? I mean after all, our man and women in uniform are paying for it with their limbs...their mental health...THEIR LIVES...So why aren't we here, safe and snug in our homes, enjoying all that America has to offer, paying for the costs of the war?

Why hasn't American industry been marshaled to meet the needs of our service members by shifting their production capacities from the newest model year car or the latest widget to the up-armored vehicles, body armor, weapons, and spare parts our troops desperately need?

Why haven't we, the people been asked to pay the costs of this war if it is so vital to the further existence of this nation? If, as Bush and his Republican supporters claim, this war is so crucial, why aren't they willing to pony up the cash to pay for it? Hell, if it's that important, I'd be willing to sell the car, take the bus to work and pay the extra cash to help secure the country against a threat of such horrific magnitude, and I'm just a middle-class Joe.

Why aren't we paying? Because just as Bush is kicking the can that is the war down the road for the next administration to deal with, he's doing the same thing with the costs of the war. But rather than passing it on to the next administration, the next few generations of Americans will be footing the bill. Rather than do the fiscally responsible thing by raising taxes, Bush is financing his war with borrowing on an unprecedented scale from foreign interests. This practice has serious security implications for the US as well as financial ones as some of these foreign lenders don't exactly have America's best interests at heart.

SO, let's push Congress to adopt David Obey's war tax...2% to 15% on every $100 of income. It's a small price to pay to see to it that our men and women in uniform have everything they need to fight for this nation and see to it they receive the care they deserve when they are wounded or maimed and their families are properly cared for should they be killed in the line of duty.

C'mon...If the war's so important, let's ALL pay.

Yurt
10-07-2007, 07:13 PM
We know, you can only wonder, no need to state the obvious.....


bullypulpit;135514]...Why...If the war in Iraq is so crucial to America's security...If the greater "global war on terror", is so essential to the the future of American society...Why aren't Americans being asked to pay for it? I mean after all, our man and women in uniform are paying for it with their limbs...their mental health...THEIR LIVES...So why aren't we here, safe and snug in our homes, enjoying all that America has to offer, paying for the costs of the war?

You are dense. You talk of "we" as if you and I and the members on this board share something. Yet, if you are an american, the question begs. What are you doing? If the guerrilla campaing over there is SO effing important to you, why are bitching about others in your long winded post? Do something you backward hypocrite coward.


Why hasn't American industry been marshaled to meet the needs of our service members by shifting their production capacities from the newest model year car or the latest widget to the up-armored vehicles, body armor, weapons, and spare parts our troops desperately need?

Why aren't you on the front lines with your new ideas? You bitch and bitch behind a screen. If your questions are so important, do something.

Does your car have the newest and greatest safety innoventions? If not, why?




Why haven't we, the people been asked to pay the costs of this war if it is so vital to the further existence of this nation? If, as Bush and his Republican supporters claim, this war is so crucial, why aren't they willing to pony up the cash to pay for it?

And just where has the $$ been coming from?


Hell, if it's that important, I'd be willing to sell the car, take the bus to work and pay the extra cash to help secure the country against a threat of such horrific magnitude, and I'm just a middle-class Joe.


You are liar. Period. Your car is not worth the gas the tank.


Why aren't we paying? Because just as Bush is kicking the can that is the war down the road for the next administration to deal with, he's doing the same thing with the costs of the war. But rather than passing it on to the next administration, the next few generations of Americans will be footing the bill. Rather than do the fiscally responsible thing by raising taxes, Bush is financing his war with borrowing on an unprecedented scale from foreign interests. This practice has serious security implications for the US as well as financial ones as some of these foreign lenders don't exactly have America's best interests at heart.

SO, let's push Congress to adopt David Obey's war tax...2% to 15% on every $100 of income. It's a small price to pay to see to it that our men and women in uniform have everything they need to fight for this nation and see to it they receive the care they deserve when they are wounded or maimed and their families are properly cared for should they be killed in the line of duty.

C'mon...If the war's so important, let's ALL pay

Lives have been paid. You are breathing free air, non muslim air. That is a price that you just can't fathom. You support social services for illegals, yet, you can't fathom your tax dollars saving your way of life. Why? Because you are scared.

5stringJeff
10-07-2007, 07:24 PM
Americans already pay taxes for the war.

Missileman
10-07-2007, 07:48 PM
...SO, let's push Congress to adopt David Obey's war tax...2% to 15% on every $100 of income.

Is this supposed to be $0.02 to $0.15 on every $100 or is it 2-15% of every dollar of income?

Kathianne
10-07-2007, 07:50 PM
Is this supposed to be $0.02 to $0.15 on every $100 or is it 2-15% of every dollar of income?

Hey, Cook County is looking for 25%, though not for war.

Missileman
10-07-2007, 07:53 PM
Hey, Cook County is looking for 25%, though not for war.

I'd be flipping Cook County the bird as I rolled outta town in my U-haul.

bullypulpit
10-07-2007, 08:02 PM
We know, you can only wonder, no need to state the obvious.....



You are dense. You talk of "we" as if you and I and the members on this board share something. Yet, if you are an american, the question begs. What are you doing? If the guerrilla campaing over there is SO effing important to you, why are bitching about others in your long winded post? Do something you backward hypocrite coward.



Why aren't you on the front lines with your new ideas? You bitch and bitch behind a screen. If your questions are so important, do something.

Does your car have the newest and greatest safety innoventions? If not, why?





And just where has the $$ been coming from?




You are liar. Period. Your car is not worth the gas the tank.



Lives have been paid. You are breathing free air, non muslim air. That is a price that you just can't fathom. You support social services for illegals, yet, you can't fathom your tax dollars saving your way of life. Why? Because you are scared.

A rather incoherent response...Must've made you uncomfortable, but that's the point. The Bush administration is the one you should be questioning, not me. It is the Bush administration that failed to send in sufficient numbers of troops in the initial invasion of Iraq. It is the Bush administration that failed to plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. It is the Bush administration which installed a Shi'ite dominated "government" in Iraq, which naturally would gravitate to Shi'ite dominated Iran. It is the Bush administration which failed to face the fact that the situation in Iraq requires a political settlement rather than a purely military one. It is the Bush administration which has borrowed from Japan, China and other foreign powers to finance the war, thus putting our own national security at risk.

As for fear, the very incoherence of your response would indicate a large measure of fear on your part. Not so much of terrorism or the war, but rather that the basis of your own world view is crumbling around you.

Kathianne
10-07-2007, 08:08 PM
I'd be flipping Cook County the bird as I rolled outta town in my U-haul.

Luckily, I don't live there. They will lose tons of jobs and undo all the good things that have happened, if they don't deal with reality.

Yurt
10-07-2007, 08:09 PM
bullypulpit;135559]A rather incoherent response...Must've made you uncomfortable, but that's the point. The Bush administration is the one you should be questioning, not me. It is the Bush administration that failed to send in sufficient numbers of troops in the initial invasion of Iraq. It is the Bush administration that failed to plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. It is the Bush administration which installed a Shi'ite dominated "government" in Iraq, which naturally would gravitate to Shi'ite dominated Iran. It is the Bush administration which failed to face the fact that the situation in Iraq requires a political settlement rather than a purely military one. It is the Bush administration which has borrowed from Japan, China and other foreign powers to finance the war, thus putting our own national security at risk.

Translation:

I have nothing to say, so will say "incoherent response" and then ASK more questions to a post that I was supposed to reply to. LOOOOOOL.




As for fear, the very incoherence of your response would indicate a large measure of fear on your part. Not so much of terrorism or the war, but rather that the basis of your own world view is crumbling around you

As for intelligence the very idiocy of your response is not surprising. No answers, merely standing on your cheap soap box and acting like you are the big man. Go back and actually answer my post instead of being dismissive, you brave keyboarder. I dare you.

Here is some feed to get you started............

bullypulpit
10-07-2007, 08:11 PM
Is this supposed to be $0.02 to $0.15 on every $100 or is it 2-15% of every dollar of income?

A sliding scale staring at 2% on the taxes low income Americans pay, up to 15% for upper income Americans.

Seriously though, if the Bush administration were really serious about this they and the congressional Republicans should be all in favor of it. Rather than continuing to run up record deficits...keeping the war spending off the budget with the continued supplemental budget requests...We should be paying as we go to be sure the troops have everything they need.

As I said, they paying with life and limb, so what's a few dollars from us. And this war is supposedly being waged on behalf of all Americans, so shouldn't we be footing the bill now, rather than future generations?

bullypulpit
10-07-2007, 08:15 PM
Translation:

I have nothing to say, so will say "incoherent response" and then ASK more questions to a post that I was supposed to reply to. LOOOOOOL.





As for intelligence the very idiocy of your response is not surprising. No answers, merely standing on your cheap soap box and acting like you are the big man. Go back and actually answer my post instead of being dismissive, you brave keyboarder. I dare you.

Here is some feed to get you started............

If there where anything to answer, I would. Your "questions" are nothing more than ad hominem attacks intended to attack me, not debate the issue.

You should rest. Your continued defense of the indefensible is simply taxing you beyond your means.

Missileman
10-07-2007, 08:20 PM
A sliding scale staring at 2% on the taxes low income Americans pay, up to 15% for upper income Americans.

Seriously though, if the Bush administration were really serious about this they and the congressional Republicans should be all in favor of it. Rather than continuing to run up record deficits...keeping the war spending off the budget with the continued supplemental budget requests...We should be paying as we go to be sure the troops have everything they need.

As I said, they paying with life and limb, so what's a few dollars from us. And this war is supposedly being waged on behalf of all Americans, so shouldn't we be footing the bill now, rather than future generations?

I can think of several better places than my wallet to obtain funding.

Yurt
10-07-2007, 09:36 PM
If there where anything to answer, I would. Your "questions" are nothing more than ad hominem attacks intended to attack me, not debate the issue.

You should rest. Your continued defense of the indefensible is simply taxing you beyond your means.

Eg.:

White flag.

Is that all you have? LOOOOOOOL

JackDaniels
10-07-2007, 11:14 PM
Americans already pay taxes for the war.

This war is NOT financed through taxes. Not even close, man.

JackDaniels
10-07-2007, 11:15 PM
Hey, Cook County is looking for 25%, though not for war.

Cook County is very close to being in a warzone :)

avatar4321
10-07-2007, 11:48 PM
we are paying for the war. And thanks to the Bush tax cuts the treasury has more revenue than ever to pay for the effort. Heck, It be nice if they cut taxes even more to speed up the economy so we'd have more money.

The real danger now is socializing various things such as healthcare. Then we wouldnt be able to afford anything.

JackDaniels
10-08-2007, 12:29 AM
we are paying for the war. And thanks to the Bush tax cuts the treasury has more revenue than ever to pay for the effort. Heck, It be nice if they cut taxes even more to speed up the economy so we'd have more money.

The real danger now is socializing various things such as healthcare. Then we wouldnt be able to afford anything.

We're NOT "paying" for the war. We're borrowing to finance the war.

There are some facts regarding the budget that I don't really think you understand.

(1) The U.S. is running a gigantic deficit, largely because of the socially liberal and big spending policies of Republicans

(2) In addition to the budget being in deficit, the money that pays for the war -- nearly half a trillion dollars total -- isn't even included in the budget.

If you want fiscal responsibility and less socialism, you do NOT have a choice in our American political system.

The Democrats are big spending, economic socialists.
The Republicans are big spending, economic socialists.

avatar4321
10-08-2007, 02:57 AM
We're NOT "paying" for the war. We're borrowing to finance the war.

There are some facts regarding the budget that I don't really think you understand.

(1) The U.S. is running a gigantic deficit, largely because of the socially liberal and big spending policies of Republicans

(2) In addition to the budget being in deficit, the money that pays for the war -- nearly half a trillion dollars total -- isn't even included in the budget.

If you want fiscal responsibility and less socialism, you do NOT have a choice in our American political system.

The Democrats are big spending, economic socialists.
The Republicans are big spending, economic socialists.

No. we are borrowing to finance social programs the government has no need to do. Tax cuts have increased revenue to the Federal Government, more tax cuts will increase more revenue.

bullypulpit
10-08-2007, 04:11 AM
Eg.:

White flag.

Is that all you have? LOOOOOOOL

I hardly think so. Your responses to the thread thus far have been jejune, attacks on me rather than any reasoned, substantive debate of teh issues raised. Dismissed.

avatar4321
10-08-2007, 04:45 AM
I hardly think so. Your responses to the thread thus far have been jejune, attacks on me rather than any reasoned, substantive debate of teh issues raised. Dismissed.

you idea is to raise taxes. which will slow the economy and lose money from the treasury to pay.

Meanwhile you want to socialize health care and enlarge the entitlement programs for the lazy who happen to vote for your candidates.

I think national security is a higher priority than your social programs. If you really want to sacrifice, sacrifice your socialism. And then lets cut some more taxes and get the economy even stronger.

JackDaniels
10-08-2007, 10:26 AM
No. we are borrowing to finance social programs the government has no need to do. Tax cuts have increased revenue to the Federal Government, more tax cuts will increase more revenue.

I don't really think you understand the budget.

(1) Those social programs are in place because you continue to vote for the big spending, big government Republicans.

(2) Most of the real spending goes to defense, not social programs. You understand that, right?

http://wand.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/22/discbudfy08_copy_2.jpg

bullypulpit
10-08-2007, 10:27 AM
you idea is to raise taxes. which will slow the economy and lose money from the treasury to pay.

Meanwhile you want to socialize health care and enlarge the entitlement programs for the lazy who happen to vote for your candidates.

I think national security is a higher priority than your social programs. If you really want to sacrifice, sacrifice your socialism. And then lets cut some more taxes and get the economy even stronger.


No, I want a temporary "war tax", with all funds devoted to the needs of the troops in Iraq and Afghnistan. If the White House and the Repbulicans in Congress are serious about their support for this war and our troops in the field, they should not hesitate to embrace such an action.

Kathianne
10-08-2007, 11:15 AM
I don't really think you understand the budget.

(1) Those social programs are in place because you continue to vote for the big spending, big government Republicans.

(2) Most of the real spending goes to defense, not social programs. You understand that, right?

http://wand.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/22/discbudfy08_copy_2.jpg

Here's the budget, over time. You'll see defense spending is NO WHERE near your figures:

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

JackDaniels
10-08-2007, 11:19 AM
Here's the budget, over time. You'll see defense spending is NO WHERE near your figures:

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

Once again, you show a severe misunderstanding of how the budget works. You understand the numbers reported by the White House in the last decade do not count the half of trillion that has been spend in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?

Read this slowly...there's a reason they call it the Iraq supplemental. It's NOT included in the numbers from the White House. Why don't you understand this?

avatar4321
10-08-2007, 11:21 AM
No, I want a temporary "war tax", with all funds devoted to the needs of the troops in Iraq and Afghnistan. If the White House and the Repbulicans in Congress are serious about their support for this war and our troops in the field, they should not hesitate to embrace such an action.

Screw the war tax. We still have a war tax for the Spanish American war on the books that hasnt been repealed. We even asked Spain if they planned to attack us anytime soon. They said no. And the Democrats still blocked repealing it.

You also seem to forget that Republicans understand economics. and anyone who knows economics realizes you get more money in the treasury by cutting taxes. Couple that with spending restraints and the funds for the war would be no problem.

Unfortunately, you guys on the left will never sacrifice your socialist programs to finance our national security. Youd rather have programs where politicians can make people dependent on government while at the same time pretending to help them so that they will continue to vote for your candidates.

Kathianne
10-08-2007, 11:28 AM
Once again, you show a severe misunderstanding of how the budget works. You understand the numbers reported by the White House in the last decade do not count the half of trillion that has been spend in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?

Read this slowly...there's a reason they call it the Iraq supplemental. It's NOT included in the numbers from the White House. Why don't you understand this?

and that IS what deficits are for, financing a war. Same as all wars the US has fought, since the Revolution. Heck the English tried to get us to pay a huge chunk of their deficit from the French and Indian War, which we may have done, if not for the Proclamation Line of 1763.

JackDaniels
10-08-2007, 11:34 AM
and that IS what deficits are for, financing a war. Same as all wars the US has fought, since the Revolution. Heck the English tried to get us to pay a huge chunk of their deficit from the French and Indian War, which we may have done, if not for the Proclamation Line of 1763.

Except you have just conceded that the big government Republicans are trying to mislead you by leaving all the money for Iraq and Afghanistan out of the budget so the numbers for the deficit will look smaller when indeed they are much higher in terms of real dollars.

Missileman
10-08-2007, 03:41 PM
No, I want a temporary "war tax", with all funds devoted to the needs of the troops in Iraq and Afghnistan. If the White House and the Repbulicans in Congress are serious about their support for this war and our troops in the field, they should not hesitate to embrace such an action.

Why do I get the feeling you are more concerned with making the war unpopular through taxation than actually supporting the troops?

bullypulpit
10-09-2007, 06:52 AM
Why do I get the feeling you are more concerned with making the war unpopular through taxation than actually supporting the troops?

The war is already unpopular. I want to see the funding for it brought back under the budgetary process and some sort of fiscal responsibility brought to funding the war. That the additional revenues will see to it our troops have all the equipment and care they need until they are brought home, and afterwards, is just gravy.