Iraq War Surtax

[GinandTonic]

So when the tax bill for Iraq is layed transparently before the democratic voter that is a bad thing?

"'K guys here is the bill for Iraq"

"How could you be so cynical and manipulative as to let us see the bill?"

"But you are already owing the bill? This is going onto your overdraft"

 

[JollyRoger]

Democrats seem determined to send our country into a recession apparently.

Gee, maybe if we didn't have a misadventure in Iraq to pay for, maybe we wouldn't have to call for national sacrifice now to pay for it instead of irresponsibly passing the tab on to our kids and grandkids. Nobody was whining about tightening the belt in WWII to the extent that is going on in rightwingland on this one right now.

But I think a tax is the wrong tact here. Let's privatize the war. Withdraw taxpayer-funded troops and stop the subsidizing of the illogical dreams of the 30% that think staying forever in Iraq is a swell idea. Let the free market decide by making Blackwater and its ilk the the primary fighters. The 30% that think Iraq is important enough can buy securities issued by the mercenary corporations and even seek employment with them. The Iraq welfare project has gone on long enough.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

So when the tax bill for Iraq is layed transparently before the democratic voter that is a bad thing?

"'K guys here is the bill for Iraq"

"How could you be so cynical and manipulative as to let us see the bill?"

"But you are already owing the bill? This is going onto your overdraft"

Considering the fact that they pretty much point out a tax increase, yes I see it as typical washington politics. The war has been run on the next generations credit, not ours. The democrats are just playing the game at this point and trying to stir up something before the elections. Nothing speical, considering most of them voted for us to go into Iraq in the first place. Rather ironic.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They are already paying for it. This is just politics at work with Democrats trying to undermine the war rather than work towards " victory " imho. Murtha in particular stands out as a real scumbag imho. In 2004 he was calling for an increase in Iraq when I saw him speak in San Diego, a few years later, to make himself look good he is calling for cutting the funding! Trying to take the MRE out of my mouth, the rounds out of my weapon and the fuel out of my veichle. Bastard.

Then again, that is imho and his voting record and own words.

Actually he wanted the funding to be spent on specific things. For example he wanted X amount being spent on body amour, He wanted X amount spent on new Amoured viechles, X amount spent on small arms etc.
However this would have wrecked chaos within the current US army. While hes intention to ensure that the US forces had adequet equipment etc it would had unforseen consequnces. In the end though this vote amounted to nothing but waste of time.

They were better off pushing for more "oversight" and "accountability" theres enough problems with in the army and imo while hes intentions were honorable . it would not have been feasiable and would do more damage then good.

The rest is a lot of right wing media BS. But then again the left wing also pulls this kind of rubbish (imo a lot less)
EDIT: No cut in funding but diverting the funds and dictacting where the funds MUST be spent.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Actually he wanted the funding to be spent on specific things. For example he wanted X amount being spent on body amour, He wanted X amount spent on new Amoured viechles, X amount spent on small arms etc.
However this would have wrecked chaos within the current US army. While hes intention to ensure that the US forces had adequet equipment etc it would had unforseen consequnces. In the end though this vote amounted to nothing but waste of time.

They were better off pushing for more "oversight" and "accountability" theres enough problems with in the army and imo while hes intentions were honorable . it would not have been feasiable and would do more damage then good.

The rest is a lot of right wing media BS. But then again the left wing also pulls this kind of rubbish (imo a lot less)
EDIT: No cut in funding but diverting the funds and dictacting where the funds MUST be spent.

And when I saw him in Diego he was all about " X number of troops put in now to " get it done " and yada yada yada " Cause he felt that was the best way to push his agenda atm. He's moved around like a pinball in many ways, going from this full court press to his accountability to his funding cutting that basicly, does take the MRE out of my mouth in a lot of ways. The funds would hit logistical units, less navy ships doing rotations ect... no way around it. You want a " surge " it's going to cost more... he tried to slit it's throat before it got off the ground. He's a scumbag imho and if I ever meet him I am going to punch him in the face for his BS.

 

[MobBoss]

Gee, maybe if we didn't have a misadventure in Iraq to pay for, maybe we wouldn't have to call for national sacrifice now to pay for it instead of irresponsibly passing the tab on to our kids and grandkids. Nobody was whining about tightening the belt in WWII to the extent that is going on in rightwingland on this one right now.

Whats this 'we' crap? I dont see Republicans calling for National Sacrifice do I?

And the reason no one was whining about WWII is fairly self-evident.

But I think a tax is the wrong tact here.

Now, I really know its wrong.

 

[FriendlyFire]

And when I saw him in Diego he was all about " X number of troops put in now to " get it done " and yada yada yada " Cause he felt that was the best way to push his agenda atm. He's moved around like a pinball in many ways, going from this full court press to his accountability to his funding cutting that basicly, does take the MRE out of my mouth in a lot of ways. The funds would hit logistical units, less navy ships doing rotations ect... no way around it. You want a " surge " it's going to cost more... he tried to slit it's throat before it got off the ground. He's a scumbag imho and if I ever meet him I am going to punch him in the face for his BS.

Heres the view from the other side minus the "slow bleed" and "fund cutting" spin. Your entiled to your opnion on the matter but the actual plan called for funds to be redirected and stricter limits be put on troop deployment and equipment. Like webbs current big calling for equal time tours and rest periods was killed because the US military would be forced to rotate more national guard units in while the numbered units were being given more rest.

In the end it came down to whether this would do more good or more harm. Given the damage done by people like Rumsfield, Feith and Bremer though ... Cant imagine what kinda punishment would be visted on those guys if you want to punch murtha in the mouth.

The plan was bold: By tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.

To be sent to battle, troops would have to have had a year's rest between combat tours. Soldiers in Iraq could not have their tours extended beyond a year there. And the Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy, which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their service obligations are up, would end. Troops would have to be trained in counterinsurgency and urban warfare and be sent overseas with the equipment they used in training.

"While we're all for troop readiness, we're all for them having all the equipment they want," Matheson, the Utah Democrat, said, "I'd be very concerned about doing anything that would hamstring resources and commanders on the ground."

 

[Japanrocks12]

I agree. This isn't really about funding the war, its about getting people to make sacrfices, to make the war come home. We went to war, and all it cost us were a few thousand soldiers, and turmoil "somewhere else". In all of our other prolonged conflicts, the american people had to sacrifice.

If we had to do that, any remaining support for the war dries up.

I third this position. Dems can't seriously expect to garner support through this.

 

[emzie]

Heres the view from the other side minus the "slow bleed" and "fund cutting" spin. Your entiled to your opnion on the matter but the actual plan called for funds to be redirected and stricter limits be put on troop deployment and equipment. Like webbs current big calling for equal time tours and rest periods was killed because the US military would be forced to rotate more national guard units in while the numbered units were being given more rest.

In the end it came down to whether this would do more good or more harm. Given the damage done by people like Rumsfield, Feith and Bremer though ... Cant imagine what kinda punishment would be visted on those guys if you want to punch murtha in the mouth.

I seem to recall Bronx not liking Rumsfield much.

 

[woody60707]

Hell, I really hope this passes.

If a war is really important to Americans, the people wont mind a 10% tax hike.

 

[JollyRoger]

Whats this 'we' crap? I dont see Republicans calling for National Sacrifice do I?

Nope. They are not serious about this so-called war or handling it in a fiscally responsible manner. The "we" was in response to our responsibilities of us as a nation. If we are unwilling to pay for our misadventures, maybe we really aren't that serious about them.

And the reason no one was whining about WWII is fairly self-evident.

I've seen plenty of WWII references being made by some pro-war types when it suits their purposes. To be fair, that only lasts about a post or two before the inevitable retreat to a safer part of the basement.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I seem to recall Bronx not liking Rumsfield much.

Well he dose have a lot of rocks in hes sack.
If hes going to have a PTSD moment I think that tearing a new a-hole into rumsfield (literally) would be a better idea then socking murtha in the mouth.

 

[nivi]

Is the Iraq war the main bone in the budget deficit?

 

[JollyRoger]

Is the Iraq war the main bone in the budget deficit?

No its not, but there are no deficit hawks left in Washington, DC. Everybody is a big spender and some are willing to expand the deficit even more by adding irresponsible revenue cuts onto their irresponsible spending.

 

[warpus]

Somebody has to pay for the war...

Maybe ask BIll Gates?

 

[.Shane.]

I find it pretty incredulous that so many of you are pro-war but anti a bill that would essentially be a pay-as-you go method. I can understand that argument against that it might not be fairly applied, but I see no alternate offered. Its like you guys are happy and proud that the next generation will pay for this clusterf*ck.

I actually think something along these lines is a good thing. Maybe not these %s, but something like this will both prevent us from going into worse long-term debt and require an *GIANT GASP* actual sacrifice by most Americans.

Or is it just that the pro-war people don't like anything that forces the average American to think about some of the real costs of the war? I know, I know, the real cost are the lives lost, but the govt. and pro-war advocates even want that information sanitized for their "our" protection.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is the Iraq war predicted to have such economic benefits that it's considered worthy of borrowing money to prosecute? In other words, are you better off borrowing the money, seeing an increase in general tax revenue (due to the war), and then using the general tax revenue to pay off the debt?

Or is it better to 'pay as you go'?

I'd borrow money to pay for better roads, because they generally increase the economy (if it's projected to return greater than the debt-cost). However, if I'm going to spend on something that won't generally increase the economy, I'm going to want the cash already on hand.

 

[amadeus]

Can't Murtha just get it from some Arab sheik? Well, maybe not at this point...

 

[Keshik]

It's a political trick and they're not serious about it. Does anyone really think Democrats want to increase military spending even if they got a precious tax increase? IF they got it assed, they would pull the troops out and conveniently forget to cut the tax.

 

[Che Guava]

I still don't understnad where the money is supposed to come from exactly if a tax bill like this isn't passed. Are there other areas of the economy that will be taxed? Will you be borrowing more to add to that $9 trillion debt? Will it come out of other gov't programs?