War Tax

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Oct 3, 2007.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    From the NYT:
    What bull-hockey is this? Not only can Democrats not be bothered to end the war, they also can't be bothered to pay for it? Nancy Pelosi dismissing the idea out of hand is infuriating. The WH calling it "reverting to form" when a few Representatives propose paying for it's two hundred billion dollar a year travesty is beyond the pale.

    I've been saying to my friends for years, and more especially now since "The War" played on PBS that if Bush really meant it, he'd raise taxes and draft soldiers to get it done. If he wants to conflate WoT to WWII, let him raise taxes to similar levels. At 98% for every dollar above two hundred thousand nobody'd be asking how to pay for mine-resistant vehicles or bullet proof vests. We could even afford the trigger-happy mercenaries Bush seems to prefer over our own army.

    I'm going to be writing Pelosi a letter, along with my own Representative. This kind of idiocy is unexcusable.
     
  2. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #2
    Odd, I thought my tax dollars were already paying for the war...
     
  3. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #3
  4. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #4
    Nothing is paying for the war right now. We're running on "credit". ;)

    I say tax the hell out of the upper folks and maybe someone will get the ball moving OUT of Iraq. It's too bad this isn't going through.
     
  5. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #5
    VISA must be thrilled.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Is that the capital of China?
     
  7. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #7
    until they call in their marker and come up empty...
     
  8. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #8
    Nope, that's where my increased taxes for the next 50 years or my lack of Social Security will come in.
     
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #9
    No, you're thinking of your children...and their children...and their children....

    Very true. But of course he won't raise taxes or draft soldiers, because it would be very unpopular for his party...same reason Pelosi won't hop on board the idea of a war tax.

    I like the idea, though. It sure would force all those war hawks to put their money where their mouth is.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    I think I'd actually rather see the Democrats propose cutting spending equivalent to Bush's war spending than proposing a tax increase. Propose cuts to programs that members of the Republic party find dear - NCLB and gas'n'oil subsidies come to mind.

    A tax increase just leaves them open to the "tax'n'spend *******" charge. Cutting spending - particularly to programs popular among Republics - would force Republics to choose between their priorities, and would innoculate the Democrats against charges of wanting to raise taxes, and against charges of fiscal profligacy. Not that those charges won't be made anyway, of course. Just that they will have a much harder time sticking.
     
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    1 Trillion in Iraq for not a G.D. thing, yet this president cant insure some of our own children. Bastard. wont be voting republican again for decades.
     
  12. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #12

    He should care about the health of our children....after all, he should want them to be healthy so they can enlist in the future and fight the neocon's next preemptive war :rolleyes:
     
  13. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #13
    More than their parents do evidently.
     
  14. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #14
    So we should blame the parents who aren't fortunate enough to have well paying jobs who can afford all the healthcare needs of their children?

    Maybe in your little fantasy land, everyone's rich, the government doesn't need to help anyone and everyone has the same great healthcare you have, but in the real world, that's not the case, and no one, especially children, should be punished for it.
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    Which is exactly what's already happening, even though they're the ones who killed it. Even though a majority of the population wants a balanced budget. And even though this was just a gesture that, again, the people who need to get it won't.

    But in his world, that's exactly the case. Insurances don't reject claims for no reason, doctors don't refuse to do treatments if they can't be paid for, wage earners never die or leave the family, people never lose their jobs, and if your job doesn't pay for good enough insurance you can always quit and find a better one. And children should of course suffer for the sins of their parents because that's what Jesus would want. Because taxes are evil. Unless they're paying for corporate welfare, or bridges to nowhere, or killing brown people.
     
  16. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #16
    Hmmm, people that can't or won't provide necessities for the children they choose to bring into the world. There's a term for that but it's at the tip of my tongue...:rolleyes:
     
  17. d_and_n5000 macrumors 6502a

    d_and_n5000

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #17
    Ahh...I see. So, in your mind, because the parents 'chose to bring' the child into the world, and they can't afford the healthcare for that child, the government should day, "Well, sorry, but you're screwed"? It isn't as if anything could ever happen where the parent couldn't afford the healthcare. After all, no child is ever born with birth defects that aren't envisioned beforehand; no spouse ever dies, leaving the other unable to take care of everything; and no parent ever went bankrupt for reasons outside of their control. Of course not. That would be ridiculous. I just hope none of these circumstances never happen to you and yours.
     
  18. njmac macrumors 68000

    njmac

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #18
    So you believe that everyone who can't provide necessities to children started out that way? **** happens even to responsible people.

    What about a married couple who are trying to make their way in the world and don't have means to have a child and get pregnant despite using protection?

    Should they have an abortion?
     
  19. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #19
    Good idea. Now can you suggest something to finance the war? A surtax that would apply only to the warmongers who want to keep it going? You know, those who choose to bring a war into the world but fail to provide for it?
     
  20. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #20
    Surely, your referring to the warmongers that planned and attacked our Trade Towers, not once but TWICE?

    I know it would be a lot easier for people to stomach if we had Islamic battleships parked in our harbors, but unfortunately that's not the way this war will be fought.

    This war is going to go on for a long time even after we pull the majority of troops out of Iraq and it won't matter which party or person leads the country for the next 4 or 8 years. Mark my words.
     
  21. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    Forget it fellas. This has been brought up in this thread and others. You won't get an answer. There's no such thing as mitigating circumstances. If you can't afford your sick kid, it's all your fault and the gov should let them suffer because Swarmie doesn't want to have to pay for it.

    Unlike the war, because everyone knows...

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. :rolleyes:
     
  22. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #22
    Whew, well, good thing we went after those guys.


    ...


    Wait. What?

    Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

    Boy, I sure wish conservatives would stop trying to link 9/11 and Iraq. It's been proven time and time again that neither had anything to do with another, yet conservatives seemed to have missed those memos.
     
  23. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    Well, you can't really blame them. Fear of the brown people is about all they got goin' for them politically these days.

    Plus it is a predictable side effect of too much FAUXNews.
     
  24. miniConvert macrumors 68040

    miniConvert

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Location:
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
    #24
    And boy do they want to keep it going. It seems like the top priority for the war in Iraq is sustaining it, at any cost. There's some serious, serious money being made by relatively few people at the expense of the US national credit card.
     
  25. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #25
    This is the part I find funny. Inflating one act of terrorism into a world-wide, no-holds-barred, never-ending "traditional" war, complete with battleships, tanks, brigades and lots of money in the right hands.

    If Bush had simply tasked a small piece of the military and intelligence establishments to find and capture the actual perpetrators of the attack this "war" would have ended in 2002. Osama would've been caught, tried and sentenced to to death.

    Instead, he chose to invade two countries, kill tens of thousands of civilians in the process (wait, sorry, "bring them democracy") and spend five hundred billion dollars so far on blowing stuff up to the effect of making more people want to attack us.

    Could he have ****ed up America more if he tried?

    Oh, and Swarmlord: you're wrong.
     

Share This Page