Dems propose war tax to make Iraq more unpopular

Raising taxes in the middle of a war...Are the Democrats CRAZY??!?!?! Why are they asking all Americans to sacrifice some of their hard-earned cash? i thought that's what i was doing when i went shopping this weekend.

Good job, boys. Its time to start playing hardball, and nothing would focus the mind of the "fight now but pay later" crowd like a tax increase to pay for this godforsaken war.

But Terry will soon be around to tell us that we don't actually need a tax increase because the war is "temporary," even though its been going on for longer than WWII and even though chickenhawks like Terry also advocate for an occupation without end.

Raise taxes and institute the draft, then see how long it takes to get our brave men and women back home safe.

I don't think any other world leader in history has ever cut taxes in a time of war. It just isn't done.

Should we be putting this war on the national credit card? No, of course we shouldn't. Let's not punish our Grandchildren for allowing Bush to become president.

We were promised this war would "pay for itself." I know that is just one of the thousands of lies from the Bush administration, but it is a big one.

We should raise taxes to pay for the war, historically it is the only sane thing to do. I would like to see those taxes paid mostly by the war profiteers, but I don't see that happening.

I hope the Demoncraps do vote for this. It'll only help the GOP come 2008.

Let's see, the surge is working. Civilian deaths and U.S. military deaths are sharply down. The Iraqi people are cooperating with the U.S. military.

While all of this is going on the Demoncraps and their masters at moveon.org ridicule Gen. Petreaus. Then the Demoncraps and their masters at mediamatters. org make up a phony story about Limbaugh and "phony soldiers," in which the media lapdogs like Mark Silva go gung ho over and repeat the lies and smears.
Now the Demoncraps, who are afraid of success in Iraq because as several of them said, "success in Iraq is bad for the Demoncratic party," want a tax increase to make the war even more "unpopular."
Yep, the Demoncraps are anti-American, unAmerican, unpatriotic, pro-terrorist, and basically the worst mankind has to offer.

"Dems Propose War Tax To Make Iraq More Unpopular"

What a great idea, the Republican Chickenhawks who support this stupid civil war in Iraq but are to afraid to serve in it might change their minds about how we need to "fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here" when they have to start digging into their own big fat corrupt "tax cuts for the rich" pocketbooks to fund it.

Yep, the Demoncraps are anti-American, unAmerican, unpatriotic, pro-terrorist, and basically the worst mankind has to offer.

Posted by: John D | October 2, 2007 2:20 PM

Lil Johnny Clownshow,
If we really are "winning" in Iraq (whatever that means) why can't we start bringing home our troops?

Has anything changed since the war started? We dont have a goal, metrics or anything that says anything productive is happening. For every report on the news that things are working, there is another that says something else. That side of the world hates us, get over it and start protecting our own country that we live in and stop worrying about taking contrl of other countries at the $ and life expense of us.

nisleib, There's not much point in having a war if you can't make a buck on it. If you raise my taxes, I'll just have to charge the pentagon more for the substandard junk I deliver to the troops in Iraq. Until you find some politicians who aren't ready to sell you all out for a campaign contribution, you're stuck with me.

"Dems Propose War Tax To Make Iraq More Unpopular"

Nice, misleading, untruthful headline. Gotta love the conservative media.

The Democrats are not looking to make the war more unpopular, they are looking for a way to pay for the Bush War. Republicans love to borrow and borrow, putting debt on every American's back. Democrats believe in paying as you spend - if you want to spend billions on a war, you'd better be prepared to pay for it. Let's not forget the Democratic Party is the only party that can balance a budget. This something that should have been done when Bush started this war.

All risk decisions must be made on the bases of alternative analyses.

However, with Iraq it's just, "withdraw, withdraw, withdraw," without analysis of the offsetting consequences.

For example, what is the risk that US withdrawl would enable an Iranian move to block the export of Persian Gulf oil (55% of world reserves) through the Strait of Hormuz?

What are the risks of a worldwide depression induced by interruption of oil supply?

What would be the costs of such a depression to the US and its industrialized trading partners?

Withdrawal talk is not more than a political wish until the above probabilities are accurately stated and the costs their occurrence compared to the costs of the war.

Stephen L. Castner
Father of CPL Stephen W. Castner, 1-121st, Wisconsin National Guard, killed in action, July 24, 2006, MSR Tampa, near Camp Cedar, Tallil, Iraq.

Great idea. How else is this albatross to be paid for? How can Bush even consider dropping child health care while asking for more money for his war at the same time? Does he really think we're all that stupid or just his base?

As usual the democrats think the solution to everything is to tax it. This is just a start for things to come if they get elected.

I would not mind the tax but 15% additional certainly seems excessive. I think this being cast in the light of a punitive tax is stupid though. Certainly will not encourage me to vote Dem come 2008 if this sort of thing is considered and acceptable measure.

Why should the average working person have to pay for a war that the "little commander" won't stop and the congress doesn't have the guts to stop the funding for?

I don't think they get it.

For some strange reason, a large number of Americans would rather pay for Iraq and give trillions of taxpayer dollars to the Iraqis rather than pay for internal needs such as infrastructure repair, universal health care, college for everybody, Medicare, pension security. This is a distribution problem not a money problem. Americans don't want their taxes raised but apparently they want a large percentage of the money raised currently under the tax system to go to Iraq.

This includes not just Repubs, but independents and Democrats. Polls notwithstanding, if there were not very strong support for staying in Iraq for the foreseeable future,
at high troop levels, we'd be outta there by now.
The anti war group can't get traction. There is a reason for that.

No, I don't agree. But when I saw all those Dem frontrunners at Dartmouth
last week saying well, I'm not sure, let's not rush it, when asked about the war I realized they were playing to a Democratic and independent constituency because they think that's where most of that constituency is at.

Great idea. How else is this albatross to be paid for? How can Bush even consider dropping child health care while asking for more money for his war at the same time? Does he really think we're all that stupid or just his base?

To John D's comments. Its those that follow any President blindly that should be hung out to dry. How many motto's, reasons, strategies and rallying crys for this war; "In the last throes, mission accomplished, to fight them there so we don't fight them here. How dense are you? As a moderate this is the most mis-managed, mis-guided strategy anybody has every come up with. I tell my children, never follow anybody just because they said so. That is what you are saying, if W says it gee I guess we can't question his motives. It has never been un-american to raise the issues when they are so blantly in front of you.

Regarding the surge, sure it is working in areas but if you are really studying this war that is no guarantee that political peace follows. Because of our mis-managment of the front end of this war we are paying dearly now. It is the un-educated, un-informed that usually yell the loudest and call those that oppose them "un-american"

We have been fighting this war on a credit card. It is time to "Pay as you go" and not put the bill on future generations.

"Raise taxes and institute the draft, then see how long it takes to get our brave men and women back home safe."

Not the draft! If Bush/Cheney had access to as many soldiers as they wanted, any time they wanted, we would ALREADY be in Iran, and China would be next on the horizon. Taxes, OK, but let's don't even think about sending more of our our sons and daughters into this morass.

While this may be more grandstanding than anything, the point is made and long overdue. Our soldiers have sacrificed too much, and the rest of America has been asked to do next to nothing.

As for all the drum beating about how well the war is going, I read some interesting stuff in Time magazine this week about the scope of the refugee crisis. Just a sampling: Among the refugees that landed in Syria are 200,000 Iraqi "childrens". Only 10% re-entered school. Out of those kids, 33% dropped out. Don't know how that compares to figures before the war but basically, just in this one snapshot, you have up to 180,000 kids not going to school due to the war. Four years later. Just in this one example.

Talk about getting left behind. So let's think about how things work in the Middle East...while they're knocking around, not in school, what do you think they are susceptible to? Recruitment by who into what? To hate which country, which, "ironically", set in motion their displacement? All done in the name of disarming a country of what WMDs again?

Pay now for the war! Let's get an immediate accounting of money spent as of today on this Bush affair from the GAO so we can keep track. A surtax looks like it will hit the companies who are profiting at the cost of our countries fiscal well-being. A 25% surtax seems reasonable to pay it at a reasonable rate. We need to know what the GAO cost figure is to limit Congress from extending it beyond that number.

Lets see the Dems want to raise taxes to make the war more unpopular. That`s a good idea. They think more people will then vote for them. It just shows they don`t have a clue what the American people think. They propose raising taxes on everything they can think of and this will make them more popular. huh

It's about time. Next they should reauthorize the draft.

"Now the Demoncraps, who are afraid of success in Iraq because as several of them said, "success in Iraq is bad for the Demoncratic party,"

Posted by: John D | October 2, 2007 2:20 PM

Is that a direct quote Journalism Johnny. What Democrat called their party the "Demoncratic" party? You are such a liar.

Not the draft! If Bush/Cheney had access to as many soldiers as they wanted, any time they wanted, we would ALREADY be in Iran, and China would be next on the horizon. Taxes, OK, but let's don't even think about sending more of our our sons and daughters into this morass.
Posted by: Richard L | October 2, 2007 3:04 PM

I totally disagree. If the political class had to worry about their own being killed in the meatgrinder, you'd see a lot more doves and far fewer chickenhawks. Bushco has been hiding behind "the all volunteer" (chuckle chuckle: stop-loss, extended tours, no down time, etc) this whole time.

If the military is no longer "all-vounteer," perhaps the charlatans, war profiteers, sycophants and Bush-apologists who cheerlead this war will have to pay more attention to the 70% of Americans who are sick and tired of this pointless boondoggle.

They think more people will then vote for them. It just shows they don`t have a clue what the American people think.
Posted by: John | October 2, 2007 3:07 PM

Thats funny.....with support for the war now at about 28%, I'ld have to say you are the one out of touch.

Hey John D., the surge IS NOT WORKING!!! Iran has cut off the arms coming into Iraq and they are ending the war. Want better news? Iran is going to come out smelling like a rose after this and the US gov. is losing it's credability. Yep, W sure knows what he is doing!

Distrust and Verify:

I agree that raising taxes is a good idea - for the very simple reason that paying for this war now will be cheaper than paying for it in the future. And this is true for a host of reasons, including the fact that our deficit spending is beginning to have a severe inflationary effect.

But I can't agree on the draft for a reason you might not have considered. You see, if we start the draft, those drafted will invariably be the sons and daughters of the poor and disadvantaged. In other words, we will have given the government another opportunity to exploit minorities. All the rich kids will get deferments, just like Cheney did. At that point, your whole exercise will become self-defeating.

Distrust and Verify, it would be great if the "political class" would be put into the military, but it'll never happen. Look at W, there is always a way out for them. As for the few that do go in, they are officers who never see the front lines.

John D...you can feel good about the drop in violence, thats a good thing no doubt. You may see this as victory, but until the Iraqi government steps up, you got nothing. What happened to your "political solution"?

This is no surprise. Murtha has supposedly been against this war, but he is a complete phony as this shows.

If you want to end this war, get out there and work for Ron Paul (like I have).

Mr. Castner, if you should read this, please accept my condolensces on the loss of your son. Your son is a true hero and a great American. God Bless you, your family and your son.

Bill R., you are correct there still needs to be a political solution. The politics always takes longer than the military aspect. Always has, always will.

Time for a IRAQ WAR TAX to pay for war funding instead of passing the cost on to the Federal Deficit. The Federal Deficit spending is like a Pyramid Scheme. The higher it gets, the higher proportion of our taxes are paid to pay interest for the borrowed funds. That means every tax dollar spent by the government pays less for government services and more for interest for the bonds issued for the Federal Deficit. 190 Billion only means every person, including all children and retired folks, only has to pay $650.00 each for the IRAQ WAR this year. A family of four will only have to pay $2600.00. Bush said Iraq oil would pay for the cost but I think he miscalculated a little.

David Obey, John Murtha, and Henry Waxman proposed a war tax for the $150 billion Iraq war spending. They are tax and spend liberals who would tax global warming or global cooling. They would tax peace Dickie Durbin asked for a peace dividend tax after the cold war to spend on social programs in the 80's. These people want big government they would tax anyone for any reason including the death tax to take money already taxed from dead poeple.
By the way, Waxman has endorsed a bill to endorse bizarre sexual acts.It is HR 2232 the Clarification of the Federal Employment Protections Act which would add sexual orientation then, homosexuals, cross dressers, transsexuals and anyone else with different sexual orientation would be protected.
Inevitably this will negatively affect the performance of co-workers forced to work alongside individuals with bizarre sex habits.
The American Psychiatric Association has published 30 sexual orientations will arguably be protected under this act.
Waxman is a secular progressive with no morals.
These sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states or can result in death.The Democrats have no shame or decency left. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

I think that only corporations that profit during war should be taxed for a war tax- at about 38%. Can a corp. that recently moved its HQ to Dubai be taxed?

War tax. 272% hike in sales tax. Higher property tax. Tax on the air we breathe.
Wait. I'll just sign over my pay check to the Democrats and go on welfare. Looks like I'll have a lot of company.

But I can't agree on the draft for a reason you might not have considered. You see, if we start the draft, those drafted will invariably be the sons and daughters of the poor and disadvantaged. In other words, we will have given the government another opportunity to exploit minorities. All the rich kids will get deferments, just like Cheney did. At that point, your whole exercise will become self-defeating.

Posted by: John W. | October 2, 2007 3:44 PM

You're are precisely correct that that is what happened during Vietnam which helped to create a lot of the division in this country. And you're right that following that recipe would certainly produce more poor and minorities for the ranks of the military. BUT, it will also spread the burden beyond the miniscule percentage of the country directly associated with the war currently.

When I suggest a draft, and note I purposely included "children of the political class" to drive this home, I'm talking about a real, universal draft. I want a draft (well, maybe want isn't the right word) that would draft people like ME! I'm 29, productive, college-educated and own my own business. I'm just the kind of person who avoided being drafted in Vietnam.

I want a draft including all men and women under the age of 42 who are physically eligible, with as few options as possible to avoid being drafted.

I PROMISE you, that would be the end of American adventuring for at least the next decade.

Bush hides behind the "all volunteer" military every chance he gets. It allows him to vicariously associate himself with them, while also implying that they support HIS war simply because they signed up at some point, many right after 9/11, back when we were still interested in catching Bin Laden and bringing to justice the people who actually attacked us.

You're right, though, that a draft that could easily be avoided by the ruling class might negatively enhance our war-fighting desires and abilities while not spreading the costs far enough to moderate our imperial bloodlust (too harsh??).

------------------------

While I have you, I was hoping to get further clarification on your defense of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Are there other examples of jurists from the past who have also asked no questions during oral arguments?

If one does not ask any questions during oral arguments, does that not imply that the Justice in question already knows how he/she would rule based on ideology rather than the facts of the individual case?

P.S. To those who oppose a draft but want to wind down the Iraq war and are against further expanding the conflict to include Iran, what means do you recommend to help spread the burden of the war to a wider group of Americans, the assumption on my part being that this broadening of the base of those directly affected will force many individuals who until now have had no burdens placed upon them to recalculate what it means to "support the troops?"

"Dems propose war tax to make Iraq more unpopular
by Matthew Hay Brown"

So let me get this straight:

Dems are going to actively try to sway opinion on an ongoing war by manipulating peoples' wallets?

...and they admit this?

They are really going to try and undermine the war effort thru taxation?

This is real? Not a joke?

Does this include Afghanistan too?

Wow, this is wrong on so many levels.

Funny how things repeat themselves. In the mid to late eighties I was a teenager and continually heard how my children were going to pay for Reagan's debt. Well, what do you know but that turned out to be another scare tactic used by the mindless, opportunistic, dependency pimps.

Contained men do not expend the energy necessary to corrupt UN programs and Saddam was going to be dealt with sooner or later. The "media" can sit around and write away Saddam's years of transgressions but nothing ever indicated to me that Saddam was going to become cooperative, or the UN was going to become effective. Perhaps someone can explain what led them to believe Saddam was going to cooperate or the UN was going to be effective in its thirteenth year? Remember we rattled sabers in the Security Council for months before he would allow unfettered access to all of Iraq, why?

After watching people turn I am ready for us to kick cans down the road until they become imminent in a world a nuclear and biological warfare.

Are the dems worried about the approaching crisis's in Medicare and Social Security, or are they working to expand their grip with more American dependency programs?

Taxes and reinstitute the draft;

The only two things that might focus the American mind.

To Bill R. Out of touch. Lets see Congress approval rating 11%. I think you don`t have a clue.

Whoa. This proposal could really backfire in a major way on Democrats. I don't think I can be any more done with the president, but this would certainly get me more po'd with Democrats.

Helena:

A large number, indeed a growing number, of Americans aren't interested in paying any more for the Iraq war, or Universal Health Care or a lot of other proposed spending. Some of us realize the government is putting us, collectively as a people, in the poor house.

It is only because they have made us so poor with their run-away spending that it has become harder for more people to afford the necessities of life. I'm not just talking about deficit spending either. The fact that we have racked up such a large debt on credit is having serious inflationary effects on us. Just look at the value of the dollar. It has dropped against all other currencies. The dollar is even being traded on par with the Canadian dollar. That is a good indication the dollar has seriously depreciated in value. The fact the government grants itself so much credit makes inflation the most likely suspect for the drop in the dollar's value. Inflation cheats poor people more than anyone because it sucks the value out of what little money they have.

BTW, it is a false dilemma to suggest that our choices are between spending on a war and spending on Health Care or other improvements. There is a third choice – which is not to spend anything at all on some of this stuff. It is Congress’ spending at its current rate that is causing the trouble. Please stop supporting all this spending garbage until we do something to pay down the debt and put our national finances in order.

It all depends on who they tax--the middle class or the people who are PROFITING from the war?

I disagree with this idea. I am all for ending the war, but I am in no way all for paying for it. I was a student when this whole thing started and don't feel that I should have to pay more taxes for a war I never wanted in the first place. Just make the republicans and rednecks pay!

Let's add a box to check on your 07 Return. Donate 2% of your earnings to the war effort if you make less thank $50K, 8% if you make between $50-100K, 15% if you are in the $100-999K bracket, and 30% for anything over a mil/yr. This would be the only funding mechanism. We'll see how fast this war ends.

Why not report this accurately? The Democrats are pushing for the tax increase to make the war unwinnable, not unpopular. They're so caught up with the political ramifications of an American defeat that they've totally thrown the stability of the region and the future of the Iraqi people out of the question. Shameful.

We are doomed. Thanks to both Republicans and Democrats. Democrats answer to everything is taxes, taxes, taxes. Republicans answer is cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Hey Washington butt heads; How about cutting spending, money creation and debt creation!

Maybe we should finance the war with a 'sub-prime' loan?

Oh wait! We are!

Distrust and Verify:

I answered your questions regarding Thomas in the original thread. As a general answer to you question, the answer is: Yes, there are a lot of justices who sit silently on the bench during oral argument, in state as well as federal appellate courts. That they start asking questions is, at times, evidence that they have made up their minds and are simply taking sides. See the other thread for the more complete answer.

___________

With regard to your "ideal" draft, I doubt that it would ever happen because it would involve drafting all those college kids and professionals who are still trying to pay off their college loans. You will not get a lot of bi-partisan support for that one.

My taxes are already paying for the war. That`s fine with me. It`s just another way for the Democrats to tax and spend. Pander to special interests. Maybe a way for Hillary to give $5000.00 to every child born. The problem the Dems have with funding the war is they can`t use that money for other give aways to buy votes to put them back in power.

Anonymous, Remind me how we're going to win, would you? Tell me what constitutes "winning" in Iraq? Less than 1000 killings per month? Less than 500? Less than 20 IEDs or car bombs per month? Less than 10? I'd love to hear your plan for "victory".

"AMERICA AMAZES AMERICA"

Yes we know we are in trouble when Americans doesn't say anything when OH GREAT SATAN GEORGE BUSH and his CIA ALLEGIANCE wants 67 billion for BLACKWATER MISSIONS IN IRAQ. We don't say anything when DICK CHENEY GIVES SAUDI ARABIA 30 BILLION IN ARMS, NOT SELL BUT GIVE.

Now a few Senator have the backs of the American People in the tune of about $58,000 each as of today and CRY WOLF.

WELL WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT. THE BROKE MAN, THE POOR MAN, THE MIDDLE CLASS MAN, THE RICH MAN, OR THE 95% OF THE PEOPLE WITH ALL THE MONEY. WHO MADE MONEY OFF OF OUR ONGOING STUPIDITY.

WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT? THE GEORGE BUSH ROBBED AMERICA FOUNDATION. WELL IT HAS ABOUT 666 BILLION IN IT RIGHT NOW, SO WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT.

I SAY THE RICH MAN WHO MADE 200,000 LAST YEAR AND NOW STANDS TO MAKE 1 BILLION THIS YEAR OFF THE BACKS OF YOUNG MEN, WOMEN IN THIS COUNTRY.

58,000 per every american. Maybe I can borrow some from an illegal immigrant, FOREIGN NATIONAL, RICH CANADIAN WHO REFUSES TO GO HOME, OR SOME RICH ASIAN MAN WHO OVERSTAYED HIS VISA AND LIVING LARGE IN AMERICA, OR MAYBE THE MITT ROMLEY that just happens to be wondering why I'M BROKER THAN HE OR SHE!

Roger is like the 'shouter' in Dillbert's office, or the 'loud talker' on Seinfeld.

Yet I like the guy. Could it be his distinguished name?

DEMOCRATES ARE SO UNPOPULAR NOW EVEN WITH THE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE IMMIGRATON ISSUE AND NOT DEPORTING OR UPHOLDING THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS FOR SUCH LAWS THIS WILL ONLY TOP IT OFF TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY.POLITICAL SUICIDE.

DEMOCRATES ARE SO UNPOPULAR NOW EVEN WITH THE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE IMMIGRATON ISSUE AND NOT DEPORTING OR UPHOLDING THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS FOR SUCH LAWS THIS WILL ONLY TOP IT OFF TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY.POLITICAL SUICIDE.

Posted by: MIKE VAN | October 2, 2007 8:15 PM

Oi. Another Roger Morris wannabe.

TeamBush plan to finance the war;

Cheney- I have an idea!! Let's put on a show!

Condi - Hey, my mom has those old costumes left over from last years Halloween play!

GWB - Yeah! And my Daddy might let us use the old barn as a theater!

Cheney - Let's do it, gang!

Now the Demoncraps, who are afraid of success in Iraq because as several of them said, "success in Iraq is bad for the Demoncratic party," want a tax increase to make the war even more "unpopular."
Yep, the Demoncraps are anti-American, unAmerican, unpatriotic, pro-terrorist, and basically the worst mankind has to offer.

Posted by: John D | October 2, 2007 2:20 PM

Can you say institutionalize? Dude your off the reservation with these comments.

Can Congress pass a "War Tax" without first "Declaring War"? Seems as if it would be unconstitutional or it is a 'defacto' Delcaration of War in Iraq by the US Congress? If the latter, then send more troops and give the President the tools he needs to win this war so future generations will not have to fight it again.

go ahead Raise Taxes and we will finally prove that higher taxes will slow the economy which will lead to more gov't benefits, which will lead to more borrowing to pay for those benfits,....

I'll choose to move by 14.9% of SS and Medicare to pay for the war. I get more benefit from the military protecting my freedom that I do from SS/Medicare.

A Dick,

Would an article from the SWAMP help you?

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/07/good_iraq_news_would_be_bad_ne.html