Dems Will End The War By Raising Taxes

[red states rule]

Some House Democrats have a new plan to force an end to the Iraq war: raising taxes.

Dems want to raise incomes taxes, excise taxes, and sin taxes. Is there any tax these nuts do not want to increase?




Show Me the Money?

Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, Pennsylvania's John Murtha and Massachusetts' Jim McGovern have unveiled a surtax — or extra charge — on taxes owed by Americans to help cover the cost of the war. It would impose a 2 percent fee on taxes of low-income earners and escalate to as much as 15 percent on high-income earners. It would be designed to raise up to $15 billion a year.

Obey says the proposal's main purpose is to generate additional opposition to the war, saying, "If you don't like the tax — shut down the war." Obey says the only families sacrificing now are military families.

Republicans pounced on the tax proposal and House and Senate Democratic leaders were distinctly cool to it, suggesting it will not get very far.


Some House Democrats have a new plan to force an end to the Iraq war: raising taxes.

Dems want to raise incomes taxes, excise taxes, and sin taxes. Is there any tax these nuts do not want to increase?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299036,00.html

 

[actsnoblemartin]

show me the common sense, oh sorry I wasnt talking to you democratic party.

You need more sensitivity training to my point of view cause you dont agree

Some House Democrats have a new plan to force an end to the Iraq war: raising taxes.

Dems want to raise incomes taxes, excise taxes, and sin taxes. Is there any tax these nuts do not want to increase?




Show Me the Money?

Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, Pennsylvania's John Murtha and Massachusetts' Jim McGovern have unveiled a surtax — or extra charge — on taxes owed by Americans to help cover the cost of the war. It would impose a 2 percent fee on taxes of low-income earners and escalate to as much as 15 percent on high-income earners. It would be designed to raise up to $15 billion a year.

Obey says the proposal's main purpose is to generate additional opposition to the war, saying, "If you don't like the tax — shut down the war." Obey says the only families sacrificing now are military families.

Republicans pounced on the tax proposal and House and Senate Democratic leaders were distinctly cool to it, suggesting it will not get very far.


Some House Democrats have a new plan to force an end to the Iraq war: raising taxes.

Dems want to raise incomes taxes, excise taxes, and sin taxes. Is there any tax these nuts do not want to increase?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299036,00.html

 

[red states rule]

show me the common sense, oh sorry I wasnt talking to you democratic party.

You need more sensitivity training to my point of view cause you dont agree

Dems idea of tax reform

Line 1 - How much did you make last year?

Line 2 - Send it in

 

[doniston]

show me the common sense, oh sorry I wasnt talking to you democratic party.

You need more sensitivity training to my point of view cause you dont agree

I think you have entirely the wrong Idea of the reason for this action.

 

[red states rule]

I think you have entirely the wrong Idea of the reason for this action.

Details please?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

new democratic idea of border enforcement, and illegal aliens getting social programs

border enforcement

1. fence, we dont need no stinking fence

2. fire all border patrol

illegal aliens getting social programs

1. are you a non america (illegal alien)

2. sign here

border

Dems idea of tax reform

Line 1 - How much did you make last year?

Line 2 - Send it in

 

[red states rule]

Defination of Democrat

 

[red states rule]

From the Washington Times this morning. They understand what the Dems are trying to to - use the war (and the troops) as a poltical pawn

Taxing the war

House Democrats are now divided among themselves over the best way to damage the war effort in Iraq. On Tuesday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, and Reps. John Murtha and James McGovern, vowed to unilaterally block President Bush's $189 billion emergency war-funding bill and called for a new income-tax surcharge of up to 15 percent to finance the war in Iraq. Mr. Obey said he would not even consider the Pentagon's request for the new funding until early next year, and that he would work to block the president's request unless he establishes a goal of halting combat operations in Iraq by January 2009 (irregardless of the military situation there). Mr. Obey said his tax surcharge, which would range from 2 percent for lower-income taxpayers to 15 percent for the wealthiest, would raise up to $150 billion a year.

Mr. Obey's proposal was too much for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Both made it clear that while they have no qualms about seeing the military chased out of Iraq, they don't want to leave Republicans an opening to criticize their advocacy of higher taxes. But the idea of increasing taxes apparently has some appeal to triangulating Republicans and Democrats. Sen. Pete Domenici described Mr. Obey's threat as "pretty gutsy," but admitted that he wasn't sure that it could work, because it's necessary to "feed the soldiers." Sen. Judd Gregg wouldn't reject the idea out of hand, and he indicated that he might favor an unspecified "reasonable way to help pay for some of the costs" of the war. Sen. Mark Pryor didn't sound like he was as bothered by the prospect of military defeat in Iraq, as much as he was worried about the Democrats being labeled the party of tax and spend. "I think Democrats understand that is one of the tags the Republicans always try to put on us," he told the Politico. "Many Democrats are sensitive to that. Given that we're in a presidential election cycle, they don't want to give the Republicans an issue like that."

Mr. Obey and Mr. McGovern say candidly that they are pushing the tax increase in part to turn more Americans against the war. "If you don't like this war, and you don't want to pay taxes, then fight doubly hard against this war," Mr. McGovern said. Yet another reason why Mr. Obey and some of his colleagues are pressing for a tax increase is to give themselves political leverage against Mr. Bush in debating 12 mostly domestic appropriations bills that will be coming to the floor in coming weeks. Mr. Bush has indicated he will veto most of them because they are too expensive. Many Democrats see political advantage in attacking the president for slashing domestic programs while spending more money on the war.

In all likelihood, the Democrats' sabotage campaign will result in a bill containing $40 billion to $50 billion in new spending for the war in Iraq instead of the $189 billion requested by the president. The lower funding level undermines any effort to do long-term military planning, and in all likelihood it guarantees yet another ugly political fight over war funding early next year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071004/EDITORIAL/110040001/1013

 

[doniston]

Details please?

OBEY said it himself and YOU posted it. you just didn't pay attention. It may well be a good and "EFFECTIVE" ploy to get us out of Iraq What details are necessary? Read your own post.

 

[Toro]

I'm all for this.

If you want a war, pay for it. Otherwise, your children will pay for it. Better me than my children. And they don't have a vote.

We're paying for it anyways. The decline of the dollar - which hit at least a 40-year low last week and is partially a function of the Iraq war - is a defacto tax anyways since it makes foreign goods more expensive.

 

[red states rule]

OBEY said it himself and YOU posted it. you just didn't pay attention. It may well be a good and "EFFECTIVE" ploy to get us out of Iraq What details are necessary? Read your own post.

Why not be honest and cut off funding? Perhaps the Dems do not have the political guts to do do - they know what the results would be

Alot of elected Dems on the unemployment line in January

 

[red states rule]

That has been as

That makes as much sense as the Dems defense plan for America

 

[doniston]

Why not be honest and cut off funding? Perhaps the Dems do not have the political guts to do do - they know what the results would be

That has been asked and answered numerous times;

1. It wouldn't work, Bush would just move the money from somewhere else-which he has the power to do.

2. Even if it did work, the Dems would just be cutting of the militaries nose to spit Bush's face. the troops wouldn't get what they need---even to withdraw.

 

[red states rule]

That has been asked and answered numerous times;

1. It wouldn't work, Bush would just move the money from somewhere else-which he has the power to do.

2. Even if it did work, the Dems would just be cutting of the militaries nose to spit Bush's face. the troops wouldn't get what they need---even to withdraw.

No, the Dems do not have the POLITICAL guts to cut off funding, so they have to find back door ways to try and stop funding

The Dems put more effort into the war on smoking then the war on terror

 

[doniston]

That makes as much sense as the Dems defense plan for America

And I'm sure you know that wasn't the whole post.---JERK

 

[doniston]

No, the Dems do not have the POLITICAL guts to cut off funding, so they have to find back door ways to try and stop funding

The Dems put more effort into the war on smoking then the war on terror

Their not stupid enought to try it. but what has this to do with the war on Terror. Got you stays mixed up???

 

[red states rule]

Their not stupid enought to try it. but what has this to do with the war on Terror. Got you stays mixed up???

This is what Murtha called the Dems "Slow Bleed Policy"

 

[red states rule]

They are not stupid enough to try it. but what has this to do with the war on Terror. Got you stays mixed up???

They are stupid for trying to force the US to lsoe in Iraq

If you do not see where this is part of the war on terror - that is your problem.

Dems are no the party of surrender and appeasement

 

[doniston]

This is what Murtha called the Dems "Slow Bleed Policy"

OH? did Murtha say something regarding this issue???? Show me. or are you just making noise?

 

[doniston]

They are stupid for trying to force the US to lsoe in Iraq

If you do not see where this is part of the war on terror - that is your problem.

Dems are no the party of surrender and appeasement

We have already lost in Iraq---years ago--maybe THAT'S where you got the term Slow bleed. ---Cause it definitely is.