So am I to infer that President Obama is pretty much abandoning his promise of no tax raises for the middle class?

If the war is not paid for, its costs "will devour money that could be used to rebuild our economy by fixing our broken health care system, expanding educational opportunities and job training possibilities, attacking our long term energy problems and building stronger communities," they said.
=============

What a concept pay as you go.
What a concept raise taxes.

What a concept pay as you go.
What a concept raise taxes.

#2 | Posted by mmike

Ah MMIKE, you really think the government will repeal the tax when it exits Afghanistan? LOL, Danforth complains everything is underfunded, lack of "revenue" he says, they will just put it in the general fund.

In college I worked for CalTrans in the audits office, the bridges in the BayArea have tolls. Initially the tolls on the bridges were supposed to goto fixing the bridges and roads, seems reasonable. But once the state needed money, the funds drop into the general slush fund, and the roads and bridges suffered.

Once the government has a tax its hard to get rid of it...... look at smoking, its quite the conundrum for the government.

I would gladly pay this tax if that is where the money would go, and it would end once the war ends. But fat chance....

And quit with the euphemisms, its TAX as you GO....

"Danforth complains everything is underfunded, lack of "revenue" he says"

Well, for about two generations, we haven't been able to stop overspending, regardless who's been in power.

Either you're good with deficits, or you're delusional if you think spending will stop.

So am I to infer that President Obama is pretty much abandoning his promise of no tax raises for the middle class?
#1 | Posted by hawk
============

What a concept broken campaign promise.

Ah MMIKE, you really think the government will repeal the tax when it exits Afghanistan?
#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris
==========
It would also exempt members of the US military who have served in combat since the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes, their families, and families of soldiers who died as a result of combat.
======

AM...can't let the military get away from paying their fair share

"What a concept broken campaign promise."
#5 | Posted by mmike at 2009-11-20 01:00 PM | Reply

So I take it we're giving up on "hope and change" as well?

"if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for," the lawmakers, all prominent Democratic allies of Obama"

The money quote as they try to run up the yearly deficit to nearly $2 trillion dollars. But when it comes to social programs no need for fiscal responsibility.

From the 6 page billeven Boehner and McConnell can read it over a weekend.
========================

If net income tax liability is:
Not over $22,600
The surtax is:..... 1% of net income tax liability

Over $22,600 but not over $36,400.
$226, plus the applicable percentage
of the excess over $22,600

Over $36,400.......... $226,
plus the applicable percentage
of $13,800, plus twice the applicable
percentage of the excess over $36,400

#9 should read joint returns

Didn't McCain say it was irresponsible to send soldiers to war and cut taxes at the same time? I think he said something to the effect that if our soldiers are making sacrifices abroad we should be making sacrifices at home.

Why can't the poppies pay for the war?

Here is a better idea:

Support the troops.

Bring them home.

I agree with this idea. In fact, the day we have to actually come up with the money for every government project will be the day we actually start looking into whether they're necessary. Politicians could actually be held accountable - what a concept.

I'm waiting for the tax on taxes....

oh wait...that's a surtax.....

I could only imagine the reaction if everyone paying taxes had to physically write a check for the whole amount rather than a payroll deduction...

Or even if the government sent us all little postcards with "Please send $x.xx for us to donate to backwater and halirapists...

I think DR is making me cynical...

"if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for,"

"If we do that, how can we go buy shoes? It would mean the terrorists win. What's next, expecting us to win wars? Where's the profit in that?"

The Republicans

PS Actually putting a cost on wars that the taxpayer bears may make them less willing to support stupid wars.

What is wrong with these people?--- more money for Afgan, more money for healthcare, more money for cap/trade---- please tell me Obama and these people are from another planet and we can send them back---- this has to be a nightmare and we'll awake from it before they spend us into oblivion.

PS Actually putting a cost on wars that the taxpayer bears may make them less willing to support stupid wars.

#17 | Posted by northgu
And all the social give aways. It works in every situation. We would spend a lot less, if everyone got a bill for each program. Or better yet, 1 bill a year, with all the programs costs itemized out like a Joint Interest Billing Statment.

New Tax or "cut and run"? Deja Vu.

Why can't the poppies pay for the war?

#12 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-11-20 04:33 PM |

And what about the mommies? Equal pay, you know.

Just what the fuck is a SMART WAR?

We've NEVER paid for anything to date, why start now? Our kids will understand!

Besides, when we're paying $1.20 more for those cigarettes per pack, if we smoke, .01 cent more per ounce for those sugar flavored drinks (in Cal and NY, and maybe NJ), and $1 per pound for being over weight (kidding, but could happen), and $300 more for a BIG flat screen TV in California, who's got money left to pay those pesky taxes?

pull out instead.

This fucking mess was started for the benefit of Enron and Unocal. There is no other reason.

"pull out instead."

Did I wake up today and Ralph Nader was president?

No?

Well I guess that's all she wrote for the "pull out" suggestion.

"pull out instead."

Did I wake up today and Ralph Nader was president?

No?

Well I guess that's all she wrote for the "pull out" suggestion.

Hope and Change = Tax and Spend.

...and the band played on...

"I am surprised at the low level of taxes in Pakistan. In the US, we tax everything that moves and everything that doesn't move!"... Hillary.

Enjoy. LOL

Only one response makes any sense:

{Face Palm}

No Hope. And the Change, well, it is all for the worse....

"this has to be a nightmare and we'll awake from it before they spend us into oblivion."

Were you worried when the previous administration was 'spending us into oblivion', or do you reserve your disdain only for administrations with (D)s behind their names?

So the cons start a war, and think the dems are the bad guys for suggesting it be paid for---typical. Too bad Bush or McCain isn't President---we could just borrow the money from the Chinese.

MSNBC.com has an article up now about $50 Billion in Iraqi reconstruction money wasted. Shame on Bush. Didn't they say the entire war would cost $50 Billion?

Didn't they say the entire war would cost $50 Billion?

That was later.

Originally?

"...the Iraq war will pay for itself"

~Paul Wolfowitz

And fer extra chuckles let's not fergit Dickless Cheney on MTP before the war...

March 16, 2003

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."

Good times, good times.

Be Well.

Spud -

Wasn't there also something about chocolates?

Oh, well, how like Dubbya, the arc of whose life can be traced by the piles of shit he left behind for others to clean up.

And so typical of the Twenty-Six Percenters and their herders, who will now bemoan "Democratic taxes" to pay for Lil' George's War of Choice; a bottomless pit for American lives and treasure that stands as an enduring monument to their irresponsiblity --- that of the fiscal sort being as nothing when compared to the lives shattered and destroyed by their imperial hubris and monumental stupidity.

And bear in mind the mantra of the Twenty-Six Percenters and those to whose tune they gyrate: "But who's going to pay for it?"

Well, here's one option:

DEMS: NEW TAX SHOULD PAY FOR AFGHAN WAR

Influential US lawmakers on Thursday called for levying a new income tax to pay for the war in Afghanistan, warning its costs pose a mortal threat to efforts like a sweeping health care overhaul. "Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for," the lawmakers, all prominent Democratic allies of President Obama, said in a joint statement on the Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010

It would also exempt members of the US military who have served in combat since the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes, their families, and families of soldiers who died as a result of combat.

"The only people who've paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families," the lawmakers said. "We believe that if this war is to be fought, it's only fair that everyone share the burden."

To which the initial response is...

So am I to infer that President Obama is pretty much abandoning his promise of no tax raises for the middle class?
#1 | Posted by hawk

...a bleat.

Before some wingnut carreens into this:

"And so typical of the Twenty-Six Percenters and their herders, who will now bemoan 'Democratic taxes' to pay for Lil' George's War of Choice..."

I see the ongoing fighting in Afghanistan as a direct consequence of and a charge to the account of the War of Choice. The mission in Afghanistan as not to "create a democratic society" (funny if not so uniformed and ridiculous) but to hunt down Al Qaeda and destroy it, especially its leadership and particularly OBL. But something -- attention deficit disorder, whateverr -- lured Bush into his war with Iraq. Consequence: OBL creeps away to remain symbolically (at least) very much alive and the purpose of the Afghan mission becomes muddled.

Afghanistan and Iraq were in no way connected in terms of 9/11. But the mess in Afghanistan and the mess in Iraq are linked to the War of Choice.

I'd be happy to see an amendment to the Constitution that requires Congress to increase taxes by some large percentage every time it declares war or gives a president a blank check to wage war. Details to be worked out, obviously. (For example, if the war ends up costing less than anticipated -- don't hold your breath -- big party on the Mall for everyone.)

PS: Largest percentage of tax increase to the corporations that profit from the business of waging war.

this tax is not about the war. this gives the dems the excuse they need to raise taxes.

Just like healthcare, the dems don't care about covering every american, they care about controlling every american

What happened to not raising taxes on the middle class?

Hope and change and BULLSHIT

Here is a better idea:Support the troops.Bring them home.

#13 | Posted by Shawn

Here's a better idea! Follow the constitution.

PS Actually putting a cost on wars that the taxpayer bears may make them less willing to support stupid wars.

#17 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009

here is where I would link the comments from canidate obama,. something about tafghanistan being the right war...

ah but dont ever forget..obama has an expiration date on his comments and statements.

BUT WaIT

what did I just read??

dems are for a TAX as a way to solve something

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The Greatest Generation didn't whine like babies when taxes were raised to combat first the depression and then to fight WWII. They still didn't whine after the war as we paid down the huge debts incurred during that war. They still didn't whine when Eisenhoser built the Interstate highway system or when GI's went to college and bought homes with the help of the VA. I'm sorry but all these fucking whiners today make me sick.
Every one of the people whining about actually paying for our wars should be offered a chance to go fight in those wars and avoid the extra tax or STFU.

Lead the way, Danni. Obviously you think your taxes are too low, and you can remedy that, come early next year. Merely make out a separate check to the Bureau of Public Debt, and you can pretend to be as sacrificial as your momma and daddy.

I get the idea, though, that the tax increases you're proposing are, as usual, on someone else. Prove me wrong.

If the Treasury had all the money back we just handed out to GoldmanAIGCitigroupJPMorgan, that could have gone a long way in Afghanistan.

But they gave big to ObamaForHopeAndChange, and so the money's gone. Too bad.

"If the Treasury had all the money back we just handed out to GoldmanAIGCitigroupJPMorgan, that could have gone a long way in Afghanistan."

So, let's enact a special income tax that only applies to bunuses. And RisR, I will not whine if my taxes go up a few percent, it's called being an American instead of a snivelling, whining, greedy freeloader.

Geez--the answer to everything by the Dems is to tax 'em.

FDR taxed certain levels of income at 90%.

And the depression dragged on ...

"FDR taxed certain levels of income at 90%."

So did Eisenhower.

"And the depression dragged on ..."

Correlation is not causation.

"And the depression dragged on ..."

Except that unemployment fell from the mid 20's to 17% and GDP rose to nearly pre-1929 levels. So, it wasn't, as in almost never is, coincidence. Post war prosperity was tremendous yet the high tax rates remained and we owed virtually no debt when Reagan took office. He fixed that by cutting taxes. Since that time we have been on a slow spiral of increasing debt, stagnant wages, decreasing manufacturing and slow death of our economy.

Thanks to logistics costs, each soldier we send to Afghanistan costs close to a million dollars per year to do a bunch of nothing! Other than spreading herbacide on poppies (which could probably be done with drones), there ain't nothing there worth doing! They aren't even looking for Bin Ladin any more!

As for needing to fight over there otherwise we'll fight the over here, that's a bunch of BS. The people of Afghanistan are in no better position to attack the US than the people of Viet-Nam were when we were fighting in that country.

Seems to me Obamma as Commander in Chief should just claim victory, bring the troops back home, send em through medical schools for say...a million bucks a piece, then put em to work back in the USA!

To address Posse Comitatus concerns, after med school, these ex-military would no longer be armed (we hope!) and could just be assigned to civil service. Heck, we could even use domestic Army bases for hospitals & clinics if the private sector didn't fee it could absorb this influx of medical people.

The problem I see with doing any of this is that the people in power seems to not have any out-of-the-box thought ability.

"The problem I see with doing any of this is that the people in power seems to not have any out-of-the-box thought ability."

Actually, I pretty much agree with you about the mission in Afghanistan but this thread is about paying for that mission. While I would prefer to bring the troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan, as long as they are still there we need to pay for it. Bush's two wars have so far been put on the credit card because they who said "bring it on" were too cowardly to face the people of America with the bill. I still hear that nit wit say..."the oil will pay for the war."
Never again.

Just what the fuck is a SMART WAR?
......#22 | Posted by dogen

.....a foreign concept to the Bush administration....

And RisR, I will not whine if my taxes go up a few percent, it's called being an American instead of a snivelling, whining, greedy freeloader.

#43 | Posted by danni
* * * *

You don't need them to pass a law for that. Just go ahead.

I was stupid enough to think that maybe Danni wouldn't bring up her never ending Reagan rant..Oh well.I can read a few words of a post and think Danni..look down and...Yep

I was stupid enough to think that maybe Danni wouldn't bring up her never ending Reagan rant..Oh well.I can read a few words of a post and think Danni..look down and...Yep

And I'm pretty stupid

"I was stupid enough to think that maybe Danni wouldn't bring up her never ending Reagan rant.."

As if I am alone in noticing when the decline of America began.

I'm sorry but who else brings this up on almost every post? I think your pretty alone on this.I'll wait for the cut and paste...

"I'm sorry but who else brings this up on almost every post?"

Only those who aren't in denial. If you look at any chart of the national debt it is pretty obvious what has happened. I'm real sorry your hero's name appears the first time the digits go into the trillions and not just one trillion but almost three and Republicans cheered for the great economy he created. The one that had higher unemployment than we have right now and the worst stock market crash (at the time) since 1929.

As if I am alone in noticing when the decline of America began.

#55 | Posted by danni

1976 aka the Carter years -

re; war costs? simple solution that would easily cover wars + healthcare

a) Tax; Iraqis, Packis, Afganis, Isrealis, the UN, & confiscate Iraqi oil

B) confiscate ANY/ALL politician's wealth over $1,000,000 - ($2 mil per couple)

TAX @ 80%;
Bill Gates who claimes to pay too little tax
Soros who is a dick

Confirmation that the HNIC is a fucking liar!!!

"re; war costs? simple solution that would easily cover wars + healthcare

a) Tax; Iraqis, Packis, Afganis, Isrealis, the UN, & confiscate Iraqi oil"

You really do have an inflated view of American power, the last seven years hasn't taught you a thing. What a complete idiot.

You really do have an inflated view of American power, the last seven years hasn't taught you a thing. What a complete idiot.

#60 | Posted by danni

I was looking at a few thousand years of history trying to remember any other WORLD POWER that conquered another NATION - - fixed their roads, water, & power - - rebuilt their army & gvt - - restored their treasury - -
then said "see ya later"

ya got any examples?? maybe Huff-Po?

Personally I am all for high taxes and more spending. The sooner we can break the devils back the soon we can get on with life and start all over again.