That's a good one, lets pay for having the country defend us. They didn't thank toll roads.Hoyer Signals Support for War TaxWednesday, December 02, 2009By Matt Cover, Staff Writer Georgia state National Guardsman, Sgt. Scott A. Millican, right, from Statesboro, GA., and Air Force Techincal Sgt. Phllip M. Huaser from Salina, Kansas, both part of the Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (CIED) route clearance unit look up as US fighter jets fly overhead near the town of Maidan Shar, Wardak province, Afghanistan Monday Nov. 30, 2009. (AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills)(CNSNews.com) – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he is “generally” supportive of a proposal to levy a “war surtax” on Americans to offset the cost of the Afghanistan war, a tax that would be set by the president himself. Hoyer added that while he would not commit “at this point” to any specific proposal, he believed that the government must “pay for what we do.” “As you know, I’m for paying for things that we do and I’ve generally been supportive of that proposition,” Hoyer told reporters Tuesday at his weekly press briefing. The number two House Democrat said that his only reservation was the impact such a tax might have on a struggling U.S. economy, saying that getting a war tax passed has been “complicated” by the country’s economic woes. “I’m generally in favor of paying for what we do,” Hoyer repeated. “Because of the economic crisis that confronts us, that effort is complicated, by the economic crisis.” According to the Congressional Research Service, the war in Afghanistan costs $3.6 billion a month, or a little over $43 billion a year. Hoyer also said he would have to talk to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) about any war surtax and how it would be structured. But Hoyer stated for the third time that he supported the idea of raising new taxes on Americans to pay for the war in Afghanistan. “I’m going to talk to Obey about it,” said Hoyer. “I’m not supporting it at this point in time, but I do support his general proposition, but I’m not supporting the tax at this point in time. Again, it’s complicated by the necessity, on the one hand, to get the economy going again and, on the other hand, to pay for what we buy.” The war surtax is Obey’s idea and is intended to prevent the cost of the Afghanistan war from derailing Democrats’ plans for expanding government and economic reforms. “If we don’t address the cost of this war, we will continue shoving billions of dollars in taxes off on future generations and 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,” Obey said in a Nov. 19 statement announcing the bill. “We cannot allow the war to derail that potential.” The legislative bill, known as the “Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010,” would allow President Obama, starting in 2011, to set the level of the surtax on individuals and corporations each year as high as needed to pay for the previous year’s war costs. “The applicable percentage determined by the President with respect to any calendar year shall be the percentage which the President estimates will result in revenues to the Treasury under this section for taxable years beginning in such calendar year which are equal to the Federal expenditures related to the war in Afghanistan during the fiscal year ending in the preceding calendar year,” the bill reads. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who recently returned from Afghanistan, called the plan “cynical,” saying that fighting al Qaeda should be more of a priority for Congress than health reform or other domestic programs. “I think that's as cynical as it is irresponsible,” Price told CNN on Nov. 30. “The fact of the matter is the protection of the American people is the number one challenge, the number one task for the United States Congress. It ought to be a priority in our budgeting process.” “There's all sorts of money that has been ill-spent to date,” he said. “I would propose to the president that he begin to decrease spending in non-defense areas, non-defense discretionary areas in Washington where you can save significant amounts of money. “A penny on the dollar will get us hundreds of billions of dollars in order to accomplish the priorities that we ought to have for the American people. And one of the priorities absolutely has to be and must be the protection of our land and degrading the resources that al Qaeda has,” Price added. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) told The Telegraph (in Macon, Ga.) on Tuesday, “It will be a very interesting argument and difficult for me to understand how a Democrat can stand up with a straight face and say, ‘OK, we’re going to spend two and a half trillion dollars on a health care bill, but we’re not willing to protect the American people.’”
Yep, the Demonrats want a tax to pay for the war in Afghanistan. There will also be a tax to pay for their healthcare reform debacle. They will most likely have a tax on taxes.
It's not your money. It's the government's. You would be better off if you would accept that fact up front.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Why miss an opportunity to increase government revenues? Isn't this the thinking of Rahm Emmanuel? Why waste a crisis?
The read on the Democrats is (1) tax and spend, (2) liberal, (3) anti-national security. Leave #3 alone for the time being. Clearly, clearly, clearly the Democrats and especially Obama have shown their unchanging character with reference to items #1 and #2 over the last year. While there may not be currently an increased tax . . . every time you turn around there is a balloon being floated about a new tax. Here's an additional tax balloon being floated to guage the public reaction. We've had balloons floated on new taxes levied on "luxury healthcare insurance". We've had balloons floated on new taxes levied on Wall Street. We've got the cap and trade legislation related to Anthropogenic Global Warming sitting like an albatross in congress (I believe the House passed it and the Senate is not really taking it up seriously right now, future business). Anyone who expects a different character out of a national stage Democrat (Tom Daschle, as a Democrat representing his consituency was a moderate Democrat; when he became a "national stage" Democrat, a Democrat having responsibilities to serve the Democrat community at a national level, became much more liberal in his actions), is dreaming. Its what they do. It is like a dog eating a chunk of meat if you drop it on the floor. Don't blame the dog: it is their nature.
I think nowadays when most of these guys on tv say we should start a war tax, or a draft what they mean is let's, and then the sh*t would really hit the fan, and therefore end the war immediately and bring out boys home.
I'm amazed everyone thinks this is a bad idea. Is it better to get the Chinese to pay now and the next generation to pay later?
The government already collects sufficient revenues. Let me repeat this so that it sinks in. The government already collects sufficient revenues.
The problem is not insufficient revenues, the problem is excessive spending. Let me repeat this so that it sinks in. The problem is excessive spending.
What we want to see our government do is allocate their ample revenues PROPERLY and with appropriate prioritzation.
There is no constitutional mandate for an expensive national healthcare system. There is no constitutional mandate for an expensive stimulus package (please don't bring that over worked and flaccid argument extending the "promote the general welfare" clause in the consitution -- I guess a Democrat never found an expense he couldn't justify under the "promote the general welfare" clause). There IS a constitutional mandate for funding defense and by extension the war in Afghanistan. We were attacked on our home territory; the war in Afghanistan is pursuant to that attack on our home territory; black letter support in the constitution for that expenditure. Thus, that stupid and profligate spending on stimulus and national healthcare needs to be cut.
That is the issue. The problem isn't lack of revenues, it is lack of spending discipline.
Another related issue -- but probably not so clear -- is that many of us abhor government growth. Increased taxes means growth of government. Particularly, the portion of national spending represented by the federal government gets bigger. I would rather see government spend 10% of the GDP and have private sector spend 90% of GDP than the opposite; the government spend 90% of GDP and the private sector spend 10% of GDP. More taxes necessarily is moving to government being a larger percentage of the GDP and the private sector being a smaller percentage of the GDP.
You don't have to agree with us. But at least the rationale for our dislike of this proposal to increase taxes to fund the war in Afghanistan is clear.
Yep, the Demonrats want a tax to pay for the war in Afghanistan. There will also be a tax to pay for their healthcare reform debacle. They will most likely have a tax on taxes.
Don't forget Cap and Trade (biggest tax in history), or letting the Bush tax cuts expire...
THROW THEM ALL OUT!!!
__________________
I love Christmas lights. They remind me of the people who voted for Obama. They all hang together; half of them don't work, and the ones that do, aren't that bright.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do
not understand, no explanation is possible.
A golf course is a willful and deliberate misuse of a perfectly good rifle range.
Hoyer supports War Tax!
