Lieberman suggests war on terror tax

Phantom · 02-07-2007, 10:10 AM

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06252236.htm

This seems like a great idea IMO. The idea that the war on terror doesn't cost anything is a myth that we need to get over. By separating the tax dollars for the specific project, people will better be able to decide whether what the government produces is worth what we pay for it. This type of idea should be expanded to other areas as well, such as federal spending on education, NASA etc.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-07-2007, 10:11 AM

I disagree, because this will simply turn into another way for the government to tax the crap out of us. We're taxed enough, we're over taxed and we need less of uncle sam dipping into our wallets.

Phantom · 02-07-2007, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I disagree, because this will simply turn into another way for the government to tax the crap out of us. We're taxed enough, we're over taxed and we need less of uncle sam dipping into our wallets.

I think this type of tax scheme might lead to lower taxes overall. Right now we have a take it or leave it type of scheme where we approve a single rate and an entire package of government programs. It would connect taxes paid more directly to the programs they support, allowing more votes on taxes for specific projects.

lew · 02-07-2007, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I disagree, because this will simply turn into another way for the government to tax the crap out of us. We're taxed enough, we're over taxed and we need less of uncle sam dipping into our wallets.

Thorgrim · 02-07-2007, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I disagree, because this will simply turn into another way for the government to tax the crap out of us. We're taxed enough, we're over taxed and we need less of uncle sam dipping into our wallets.

you're damn right we're gonna tax the crap out of the rich, elections have consequences and i called this "war on terror" tax hike forever ago

just like in 93, it's not going to lead to a recession

just take comfort in that you don't make enough money to be a part of this latest hike

Kytro · 02-07-2007, 07:13 PM

Optional tax. People can decide if they want to spend more.

JaJae · 02-07-2007, 07:16 PM

I don't like linking taxes to something that isn't concrete like "war on terror." Nobody will ever declare it over and we'll be paying for this, and our grandkids will be paying, etc.. just like these ridiculous phone taxes. If they want to raise taxes, call it what it is and just do it. Otherwise, stop spinning it.

RMNIXON · 02-07-2007, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I disagree, because this will simply turn into another way for the government to tax the crap out of us. We're taxed enough, we're over taxed and we need less of uncle sam dipping into our wallets.

Right now with the economy as good as it is revenue is just fine. Why don't they adjust some spending priorities?

kinggovernor · 02-07-2007, 07:40 PM

how about a war on terror tax AND a decrease in domestic spending

R-Type · 02-07-2007, 07:40 PM

I don't think we should add MORE tax, especially on open ended concepts like 'the war on terror,' the 'war on drugs,' etc, but I do think people should have a say in WHERE their tax money goes. Don't like what the military's being used for these days? Bias your payment away from it. don't like paying for public education? bias away from that, etc. Don't give a shit? check off 'equal distribution.' The amount paid wouldn't change and you wouldn't be able to abstain entirely from paying into each program, but it would be a neat way of being able to 'vote with your wallet.' Politicians will say that all kinds of things need to be done, but when it comes time to pay for it, everyone shuts up except those who truly believe in the cause.

Thorgrim · 02-10-2007, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Right now with the economy as good as it is revenue is just fine. Why don't they adjust some spending priorities?

Nope, tax increase to fund the war on terror

ballz2wallz · 02-10-2007, 04:57 PM

Will this tax still be around in 50 yrs after the war on terror is over?

Probably.

RMNIXON · 02-10-2007, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Will this tax still be around in 50 yrs after the war on terror is over?

Probably.

Just thank the Reagan/Bush Sr. investment in our military or we would be paying in more blood and money now!

And don't forget those who at the end of the Cold War thought we didn't need much of a military or even a CIA. Because their party just took over the congress........

Thorgrim · 02-10-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Just thank the Reagan/Bush Sr. investment in our military or we would be paying in more blood and money now!

And don't forget those who at the end of the Cold War thought we didn't need much of a military or even a CIA. Because their party just took over the congress........

Oh yeah...that cold war technology really saved us a butt-load in Iraq

That's why our helicopters are designed to protect against sophisticated AA attacks, but as the military said, are unequipped to deal with a MACHINE GUN at close range because no one ever thought we'd be fighting this kind of war

That's why our vehicle transports are designed to move fast in a coordinated assault on major cold war positions, not patrol back and forth in an occupation and be subject to IEDs...again technology designed for something we don't need

The british military could be doing the same job if not better with their technology which is probably at Jimmy Carter's level

ballz2wallz · 02-10-2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That's why our helicopters are designed to protect against sophisticated AA attacks, but as the military said, are unequipped to deal with a MACHINE GUN at close range because no one ever thought we'd be fighting this kind of war

That's why our vehicle transports are designed to move fast in a coordinated assault on major cold war positions, not patrol back and forth in an occupation and be subject to IEDs...again technology designed for something we don't need

These are ridiculous arguments. There will never be a time when our military is already equipped for methods of attack from an enemy. That's part of war: one side beefs up a style of attack/defense, and the other changes their tactic to catch then previously readied armies off guard. What is it you are expecting?

Diesel66 · 02-10-2007, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Oh yeah...that cold war technology really saved us a butt-load in Iraq

That's why our helicopters are designed to protect against sophisticated AA attacks, but as the military said, are unequipped to deal with a MACHINE GUN at close range because no one ever thought we'd be fighting this kind of war

?????

They are helicopters not tanks. Even the Hind can be taken down with heavy machine gun fire.

JaJae · 02-10-2007, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

These are ridiculous arguments. There will never be a time when our military is already equipped for methods of attack from an enemy. That's part of war: one side beefs up a style of attack/defense, and the other changes their tactic to catch then previously readied armies off guard. What is it you are expecting?

Exactly. As Diesel said above these are helicopters not tanks. If you add armor, you add weight, less mobility, less distance traveled, less speed... and you open them up to attacks from rpgs. If we had more helicopters like that, we'd have more helicopters crashed from RPGs and even more dead.

There is no right answer here.

motivez · 02-11-2007, 06:53 PM

The War on Terrorism is going to be around as long as terrorism is. There will always be people willing to commit acts of terrorism because they hate this or that.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

The War on Terrorism is going to be around as long as terrorism is. There will always be people willing to commit acts of terrorism because they hate this or that.

Is it possible that terrorism in the world can be as common (well, uncommon) as it is in the US? I think so.

When that happens there will be no war on terror.

Scrum · 02-12-2007, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Is it possible that terrorism in the world can be as common (well, uncommon) as it is in the US? I think so.

I don't think so. I think conflict is too profitable for too many.

Terrorism has been and always will be an issue. How much of an issue is up for debate.