posted on October 2, 2007 11:05:43 AM new
If the Neo-cons are really in favor of this war and support the troops they should have no problem supporting this idea especially since it would not burden the next generation to pay for this war. It would also help trim the deficit. I bet they won't. tsk tsk tsk
Senior Democrats, apparently looking to make the war in Iraq still more unpopular, now are proposing a new tax to pay for continuing combat operations.
The plan unveiled today by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. "Jack" Murtha and Rep. Jim McGovern would spread the sacrifice among all taxpayers by tacking a "war surcharge" on top of the federal income tax. Americans would pay up to 15 percent more on their taxes in order to raise the $150 billion needed annually to keep the war going.
"If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war," Obey said today.
The Democratic leadership, still looking for a way to seize control of the war, has yet to endorse the new tax.
"I agree with the proposition that this generation of Americans ought to help pay for the war that we are carrying on," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer told reporters. "Whether that means that we need to have a tax increase at this point in time, we haven’t discussed that."
Obey said his committee would not consider President Bush’s $190 billion request for the war until the new year – and signaled that he was now willing to condition future war funding on plans for a U.S. withdrawal. That would be a change for Democrats, who have tried to attach strings to war spending, but have said that they would not try to end the war by cutting off funding for the troops.
Today, Obey told reporters he had "no intention" of approving a funding request "that simply serves to continue the status quo."
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
Again, the dems have NO solution to ANYTHING EXCEPT to RAISE our/your taxes.
LOL LOL LOL
First of all we don't need to pay for the war in this manner.
The DEMS are more than willing to FUND them. As I posted elsewhere their Senate voted 92-3 to fund it.
Now the house comes up with raising our taxes. How typically liberal. LOL LOL LOL
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN....DREAM ON.
===================
Michelle Malkin Lead Story
The White Flag Democrats’ grand new scheme: A war “surtax”
By Michelle Malkin • October 2, 2007 03:26 PM
Brilliant:
Three top House Democrats are proposing a “war surtax” to fund the Iraq war.
“If the president really is concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation which will provide for a war surtax for that portion of military costs that are related to our military actions in Iraq,” Rep. David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, says, according to Reuters.
The Politico reports members of the Democratic leadership say they’ll oppose any spending bills that don’t include a plan to end the 4-year-old conflict. Under the surtax proposal, taxpayers would pay extra taxes — ranging from 2% to 15% based on income — designed to raise $140 billion a year for the war effort.
Ways and Means ranking GOP member Jim McCrery shoots it down:
Ways and Means Ranking Member Jim McCrery (R-La.) issued the following statement today in response to a Democratic proposal to impose a new surtax of up to 15 percent to pay for the costs of the War on Terror.
“This proposal would be detrimental to our economy and our national security. It has become clear over the past year that the Majority’s response to any public policy issue is to raise taxes, but this is ridiculous. Trying to coerce the American people into cutting and running from Iraq with the threat of an astronomical tax increase is cynical and transparent.”
Nothing screams impotence louder than a desperate, last-ditch effort to tax the war on terror to death.
***
The House Dems are stalling. This is how they support the troops:
Frustrated by the stalemate over Iraq, House Democrats spelled out a strategy that would stall action on President Bush’s 2008 war budget and rely on incremental funding to sustain troop operations in until next spring.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined an almost $190 billion request last week for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan over the coming year. But House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) said this morning that he had “absolutely no intention” of reporting out a bill this year to fund “any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo.”
Instead, Democrats appear likely to provide short-term funding in the range of $40 billion to $50 billion to sustain overseas operations as part of final House-Senate negotiations on a pending budget bill covering the Pentagon’s core costs for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The Senate is to take up that measure today, and the appropriations leadership is hopeful a House-Senate agreement can be sent to the White House before Thanksgiving, when a final decision will have to be made about ensuring troops in the field have adequate funds.
See continuing coverage of developments in Iraq, including an interactive map of day-to-day events in Iraq and a tally of military deaths.
Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), who manages the defense bill, said this could be done either in the form of an expanded transfer authority within the core bill, which totals about $459.6 billion, or with added emergency funds.
Absent some action, the Army’s operations funds would run dry in early January, but if Congress were to add $40 billion to $50 billion in emergency funds, it would be enough of a cushion to avoid major disruptions.
Such “bridge funds” have been used in the past to help finance the war, but in those cases, Congress felt it was necessary to add money because the administration had not submitted a full-year request. What’s changed now is that the White House is poised to ask for the full sum it thinks it needs in 2008, but Democrats, trying to force more change in U.S. policy, are proposing to hold back most of the request.
Brian Faughnan crunches the numbers:
Is it really wise to propose a series of mammoth tax increases at a time when the economy is slowing down and the federal fiscal picture is improving so dramatically? And even if Democrats are confident that their tax increases won’t harm economic growth, it’s worth remembering that the taxpayer burden is higher than it has ever been before…while Democrats pitch this as a shared sacrifice to pay for the war, that claim doesn’t hold water. Even they know that money is fungible, and they have proposed huge spending increases.
-----
ROFLOL at ld's EXCITEMENT over something that's NOT going to happen. LOL Reminds me of how excited he got when gays were allowed to marry for FOUR HOURS....before it was reversed.
This stupid idea - ANTI-TROOP idea - lasted about the same length of time - FOUR hours.
Poor ld, he'll be SO disappointed. LOL LOL LOL
----------
Their QUEEN socialist has spoken. LOL
Pelosi nixes idea of ‘war tax
By Mike Soraghan
October 02, 2007
All told, the Democratic proposal for an “Iraq tax” lasted about four hours.
That’s roughly the amount of time from when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) gave life to the idea with his endorsement to when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) strangled it.
“Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax,” Pelosi said in a statement issued this afternoon.
Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) is the author of the tax proposal, which is still being written. The tax would be intended to raise roughly $150 billion for the war and consist of a surtax of 2 to 15 percent of a person’s income tax. A 2 percent surtax means that a person who otherwise would pay $100 in taxes would pay $102.
“If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war,” Obey said in a news conference.
Obey also told reporters President Bush will not get supplemental money for the Iraq war until he agrees to change course.
Bush has sent a request for a $190 billion supplemental spending bill.
“As chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo,” Obey told reporters.
Obey wants a war spending bill to end U.S. involvement in combat operations by January 2009, allow more rest time for troops between deployments and start a diplomatic surge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh darn, no NEW 'war taxes' for the liberals to spend. What a shame. NOT!!!
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 2, 2007 03:24 PM ]
posted on October 3, 2007 07:46:21 AM new
And Bush's solution is to stay the course and let the next generation pay for his war and the let the next president clean up the mess he started.
Just as I had expected, Linda is in favor of the war, but doesn't believe in contributing a dime to pay for it. "In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on October 3, 2007 09:10:01 AM new
Yes, Logansdad, linduh and other neocons relish the idea of the war going on forever but these are the very people who squeal like pigs at the thought that THEY have to pay taxes !!!!
Isn't that weird ???
HOW do they think this debacle will be paid for ???? Contributions from Halliburton ???LOL!
posted on October 3, 2007 11:15:14 AM new
How am I lying Linda?
You can't face the facts that this war will go well beyond 1/20/09? That is the truth and not a lie.
Are you also going to deny that the war will not be paid for in your generation or mine. It will have to be paid for by the next generation. There are many economists that have said the exact same thing.
You just cant face reality. Prove to me that I am lying Linda if you can.
posted on October 3, 2007 09:36:07 PM newthey should have no problem supporting this idea especially since it would not burden the next generation to pay for this war.
Ok logansdunce. Time to put up or shut up. You open your wallet first.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on October 4, 2007 07:26:37 AM newOk logansdunce. Time to put up or shut up. You open your wallet first.
And the uneducated one is the first to prove my point. Stoney gets the pize for being stupid. Here is another one that supports Bush and stands behind the war as long as he doesn't have to pay for it.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on October 4, 2007 07:51:17 AM new
Talk about un-educated. Logansdunce has to shift attention away when it comes time for him to put up or shut up.
Guess when he says raise taxes, that means for everyone but himself.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on October 4, 2007 11:53:25 AM new
The idiot doesn't get.
It is you and your fellow Bush supporters that claim they support the war, but do not care that it will have to be paid for by future generations.
It is time to put your money where your mouth is. If yuo actually support the war like you claim, you would be willing to pay for it with your tax dollars.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
Are YOU a Bunghole?