NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, another brilliant idea from Joseph Lieberman:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Joseph Lieberman said on Tuesday that Congress should consider a tax to fund the U.S.-declared war on terrorism and reduce the need to cut domestic programs to pay for security spending.

A former Democrat who supports the Iraq war and backs President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, Lieberman said the proposed increase in the Pentagon's budget for next fiscal year will squeeze funding for critical domestic programs.

"I think we have to start thinking about a war on terrorism tax," the independent Connecticut lawmaker said. "I mean people keep saying we're not asking a sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war and some civilians who are working on it."

"When you put together the (Pentagon) budget and the Homeland Security budgets, we need to ask people to help us in a way that they know when they pay more it will go for their security," he said during a Senate panel hearing on the defense budget request.

Bush on Monday asked Congress to approve $700 billion in new military spending and to curb many domestic programs. The request includes $245 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars between now and late 2008.

If Congress approves the war funding, the United States will have spent $661.9 billion on combat in Iraq, Afghanistan and related activities.

Increased defense spending since 2001 has come amid tax cuts that the Bush administration says were critical to keeping the U.S. economy strong after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Article here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17009569/from/RS.4/)

So, what do you think?

The last thing the "War On Terror" needs is a steady source of funding.

Yes, another brilliant idea from Joseph Lieberman:



Article here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17009569/from/RS.4/)

So, what do you think?



I would like to go on record as saying I did not vote for Joseph Lieberman in any of the last few elections.

We should not tax the terrorists. The should be free to live how they like without the government trying to force them into the mainstream lifestyle.

Yes, another brilliant idea from Joseph Lieberman:



Article here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17009569/from/RS.4/)

So, what do you think?

Awful light on substance--who would be taxed? At what rate? Will there be an exemption for conscientious objectors? Can we get a definition of what's involved in this war on a tactic? Some benchmarks of success? Will this be a temporary tax or will it last as long as the war does, which is to say, forever?

On a side note: Fuck that guy. I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart were on fire.

I do not hold Mr. Lieberman in high esteem, personally.

we could call it the lieberman tax. it'll be a tax on people named joe lieberman who are members of the senate.

hey joe, pay for your own damn imperial clusterfuck

we could call it the lieberman tax. it'll be a tax on people named joe lieberman who are members of the senate.

hey joe, pay for your own damn imperial clusterfuck

Not a bad idea at all. :)

Maybe we could tax the families of terrorists our military kills. Like when Zarkawi was killed in Iraq, his family back home in Jordan could be presented with a bill for the price of the bombs and the fuel used by the airplane that dropped them.

Let's tax people to fund the systematic removal of their civil rights. Brilliant. What could possibly go wrong?

we could call it the lieberman tax. it'll be a tax on people named joe lieberman who are members of the senate.

hey joe, pay for your own damn imperial clusterfuck

Alternatively, we could garnish the wages of the Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.

This is my favorite bit:

"I think we have to start thinking about a war on terrorism tax," the independent Connecticut lawmaker said. "I mean people keep saying we're not asking a sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war and some civilians who are working on it."

So we tax civilians for a war started by our government officials based on false information, and is not very popular. :rolleyes:

Someone needs to slap him upside the head.

This is my favorite bit:



So we tax civilians for a war started by our government officials based on false information, and is not very popular. :rolleyes:

Someone needs to slap him upside the head.

That's not good enough. Several repeated kicks in the nads would be a good place to begin, though.

Alternatively, we could garnish the wages of the Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.

only if it's their prison wages

That's not good enough. Several repeated kicks in the nads would be a good place to begin, though.

Presuming, of course, he has any.

Personally, I'd prefer an increase in taxes to a cut in education and health-care spending. We're going to finance this war anyway; at least it shouldn't cut into social services.

Personally, I'd prefer an increase in taxes to a cut in education and health-care spending. We're going to finance this war anyway; at least it shouldn't cut into social services.

It cuts into it regardless. However much we put into this war is however much we COULD have been putting into our healthcare, our education, our social programs, our scientific research, our search to find cures for diseases...

only if it's their prison wages

That wouldn't pay for anything. No, we keep them out of prison and make them go around a nice, highly-paid lecture circuit, describing how they laughed and laughed when Congress voted for the war even with that lame-ass "weapons of mass destruction" crap they'd fed the people.

I give this idea an F-.

It cuts into it regardless. However much we put into this war is however much we COULD have been putting into our healthcare, our education, our social programs, our scientific research, our search to find cures for diseases...

And an aborted fetus could have become a perfectly healthy baby; fortunately, the law doesn't take that into account. What's your point? That you would prefer to take money out of our health-care and educational systems to pay for the cost of the war rather than increasing taxes to foot the bill because that tax increase could be alternatively used to boost funding for those systems? That's flawed logic.

And an aborted fetus could have become a perfectly healthy baby; fortunately, the law doesn't take that into account. What's your point? That you would prefer to take money out of our health-care and educational systems to pay for the cost of the war rather than increasing taxes to foot the bill because that tax increase could be alternatively used to boost funding for those systems? That's flawed logic.

Hoo-boy. You know when someone starts an aggressive post with an abortion metaphor, you're in for a treat.

I'm saying the war is costing us money regardless, and is cutting into everything else regardless of what label we put on it or through what method we do it with, be it budget or tax, so it doesn't matter. At least a terrorism tax would be more honest - "We're using this money to kill people and further an idea that America is incompetant."

I'm saying the war is costing us money regardless, and is cutting into everything else regardless of what label we put on it or through what method we do it with, be it budget or tax, so it doesn't matter.

So you'd prefer our current system of funding the war (cuts in the health-care and educational systems) to simply creating a new "terrorism" tax? The burden for fighting the war falls squarely on the back of the poor who take the most advantage of such social services; should we instate a new tax, the rich would foot most of the bill. Of course it matters, and I don't want the common people to be unnecessarily hurt by the administration's disastrous policies.

Bloody military sponging our tax dollars! What right do they have? Travelling all over the world, abusing prostitutes wherever they go, drugs and whatever all at the taxpayers' expense!

Let them start up a charity. If people want the terrorists fought so badly they'll fund it.

So you'd prefer our current system of funding the war (cuts in the health-care and educational systems) to simply creating a new "terrorism" tax? The burden for fighting the war falls squarely on the back of the poor who take the most advantage of such social services; should we instate a new tax, the rich would foot most of the bill. Of course it matters, and I don't want the common people to be unnecessarily hurt by the administration's disastrous policies.

No shit. If it could be possible, I'd back a bill enstating a "Rich Bastard" tax, and use all the money from that on fighting the war while all the other taxes took care of everything else.

I'm just saying this tax in particular is no different than it being taken from the budget, because it all comes from the same place.

Bloody military sponging our tax dollars! What right do they have? Travelling all over the world, abusing prostitutes wherever they go, drugs and whatever all at the taxpayers' expense!

Let them start up a charity. If people want the terrorists fought so badly they'll fund it.

I wish our military was fighting terrorists. A few in Afghanistan actually did fight terrorists, but Iraq took soldiers and resources away from that fight. Now most of our soldiers are fighting Shi'ite militias in Iraq because they removed the guy keeping a lid on the Iranian sponsored scumbags and handed the country over to Iranian proxys. They're barely even fighting the Sunni insurgents who at least have a few Al Qaedas among them.

That's not good enough. Several repeated kicks in the nads would be a good place to begin, though.

Ooh, sounds like fun! :D

*volunteers*

No shit. If it could be possible, I'd back a bill enstating a "Rich Bastard" tax, and use all the money from that on fighting the war while all the other taxes took care of everything else.

I'm just saying this tax in particular is no different than it being taken from the budget, because it all comes from the same place.

I for one support the "Rich Bastard Tax" we can start with 90% of everyone in any public office.

Will there be an exemption for conscientious objectors?
doubtful, I still have to pay taxes for public schools even though my kids don't use them.

I wish our military was fighting terrorists. A few in Afghanistan actually did fight terrorists, but Iraq took soldiers and resources away from that fight. Now most of our soldiers are fighting Shi'ite militias in Iraq because they removed the guy keeping a lid on the Iranian sponsored scumbags and handed the country over to Iranian proxys. They're barely even fighting the Sunni insurgents who at least have a few Al Qaedas among them.

Yeah, I know. I just thought of the parody. I'm in the UK, so it's actually none of my business (although it does sound jolly daft).

I'm just saying this tax in particular is no different than it being taken from the budget, because it all comes from the same place.

But it doesn't. The money is currently coming primarily from our health-care and educational systems. If the funding from those is cut, the poor will lose out. However, if we instate a "terrorist" tax, that funding will not be cut and the rich (and middle-class) will primarily foot the bill. The money does not come from the same place -- opting for a terrorist tax will shift the tax burden more towards the rich and away from the poor. The rich can go to private schools while the poor are forced to go to derelict schools. The rich are entitled to a high standard of health-care; the poor are not. Don't make the poor pay for the war, too.

But it doesn't. The money is currently coming primarily from our health-care and educational systems. If the funding from those is cut, the poor will lose out. However, if we instate a "terrorist" tax, that funding will not be cut and the rich (and middle-class) will primarily foot the bill. The money does not come from the same place -- opting for a terrorist tax will shift the tax burden more towards the rich and away from the poor. The rich can go to private schools while the poor are forced to go to derelict schools. The rich are entitled to a high standard of health-care; the poor are not. Don't make the poor pay for the war, too.

source?

But it doesn't. The money is currently coming primarily from our health-care and educational systems. If the funding from those is cut, the poor will lose out. However, if we instate a "terrorist" tax, that funding will not be cut and the rich (and middle-class) will primarily foot the bill. The money does not come from the same place -- opting for a terrorist tax will shift the tax burden more towards the rich and away from the poor. The rich can go to private schools while the poor are forced to go to derelict schools. The rich are entitled to a high standard of health-care; the poor are not. Don't make the poor pay for the war, too.

I'm fairly certain this "terrorist tax" he's talking about won't do much in terms of taxing the rich. After all, he's one of the rich.

But it doesn't. The money is currently coming primarily from our health-care and educational systems. If the funding from those is cut, the poor will lose out. However, if we instate a "terrorist" tax, that funding will not be cut and the rich (and middle-class) will primarily foot the bill. The money does not come from the same place -- opting for a terrorist tax will shift the tax burden more towards the rich and away from the poor. The rich can go to private schools while the poor are forced to go to derelict schools. The rich are entitled to a high standard of health-care; the poor are not. Don't make the poor pay for the war, too.

Where did you get all this info?

source?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003558612_budget06.html

Here's a quote from that source.

MILITARY SPENDING

• Bush is seeking $100 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for the rest of fiscal year 2007 ending Sept. 30 and $145 billion for fiscal year 2008. The budget also projects $50 billion in war costs for 2009.

• The military is seeking billions of dollars to replace tanks, artillery and other weapons used in the Iraq war. Those costs are included in the 2007 and 2008 war requests.

• Bush is also requesting $481 billion for the regular Pentagon budget.

DOMESTIC SPENDING

• Domestic discretionary spending would grow by 1 percent.

• Bush will seek savings of $66 billion in Medicare over five years and $12 billion in Medicaid. Some savings would be achieved by curbing payments to hospitals and other providers.

• The Interior Department would get $10.1 billion, a 4.1 percent increase over 2007.

• Bush seeks $313 million for the Mine Safety and Health Administration, a 13 percent increase from 2007, as part of Labor Department budget of $50.4 billion, a 7.9 percent increase over 2007.

• The Environmental Protection Agency would get $7.1 billion, a 4.9 percent cut from 2007. Amtrak's budget was cut from $1.3 billion to $800 million.

• Education Department seeks $62.6 billion, a 5 percent cut from fiscal 2007, eliminating more than three dozen programs. Some programs such as Pell grants for low-income college students would go up.

• The White House would cut crop subsidies by $4.5 billion over the next 10 years mostly through lower support prices.

THE FISCAL PICTURE

• The budget projects deficits of $244 billion in fiscal 2007, $239 billion in 2008 and $187 billion in 2009, assuming passage of Bush's proposals.

• The budget is expected to show a $61 billion surplus in 2012, but Democrats are likely to question the assumptions about economic growth and tax revenue supporting this.

• Bush will call for making his tax cuts permanent and a one-year fix to shield middle-income Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

• The budget deficit was $248 billion in fiscal 2006 after hitting an all-time high of $413 billion in 2004.

Alternatively, we could garnish the wages of the Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.

How about they just throw them in prison for their war crimes, seize all of their assets, the assets of the think tanks that advocated the war, the assets of the Congress people who voted the war and didn't recant, and the assets of those who profit from the no-bid contracts, and then use the money to find a way out of the war?

In Germany, the increase of taxes on cigarettes is used for security purposes.

Damn you, terrorists!!!

How about they just throw them in prison for their war crimes, seize all of their assets, the assets of the think tanks that advocated the war, the assets of the Congress people who voted the war and didn't recant, and the assets of those who profit from the no-bid contracts, and then use the money to find a way out of the war?

Well, that's not ultra-authoritarian in the least. :rolleyes:

How about they just throw them in prison for their war crimes, seize all of their assets, the assets of the think tanks that advocated the war, the assets of the Congress people who voted the war and didn't recant, and the assets of those who profit from the no-bid contracts, and then use the money to find a way out of the war?

Well, that's not ultra-authoritarian in the least. :rolleyes:

It might be just a tad draconian but it works for me. How about we introduce an idea from Athenian democracy, ostracism? At the end of any administration, the people vote in a special election and whoever from the outgoing bunch that gets the most votes has to leave the country for some period of time, not less than five years. Basically, if you screw up big time, you get thrown out. The Shrub is big on the march of democracy, this is a tried-and-true element of the most famous democracy of them all.

Well, that's not ultra-authoritarian in the least. :rolleyes:

No war but class war. I think that the crimes of these people are more then enough to warrant revoking their rights to make a killing off of other peoples' blood. It's not authoritarian to limit the rights of those who so callously limit the rights of others.

This is my favorite bit:
This one's mine:
"When you put together the (Pentagon) budget and the Homeland Security budgets, we need to ask people to help us in a way that they know when they pay more it will go for their security," he said during a Senate panel hearing on the defense budget request.He must have missed the finding that a certain Iraq war has decreased the levels of security. :rolleyes:

I think the bush tax cuts should be repealed anyway. Having tax cuts at the same time as a war never made any sense to me, wars aren't cheap. Of course, if we weren't in Iraq (which I was against from the start), this problem would not be nearly so large.

Here's an idea: Put a terror tax on gasoline. That would actually help by cutting off our enemies' source of funding; it would also highlight to people the very real fact that their wasteful consumption of oil is enabling our enemies to get the kind of funding they need to continue attacks against us and our allies. Even better, it would spur development of alternatives and cut our CO2 emissions, fighting global warming and creating jobs in the US through increased investment in the high-tech, high-paying alternative energy sector.

Here's an idea: Put a terror tax on gasoline. That would actually help by cutting off our enemies' source of funding; it would also highlight to people the very real fact that their wasteful consumption of oil is enabling our enemies to get the kind of funding they need to continue attacks against us and our allies. Even better, it would spur development of alternatives and cut our CO2 emissions, fighting global warming and creating jobs in the US through increased investment in the high-tech, high-paying alternative energy sector.

That deserves both a high five and a cookie.

I think the bush tax cuts should be repealed anyway. Having tax cuts at the same time as a war never made any sense to me, wars aren't cheap.


Not that I agree with Bush's tax cuts, but the tax cuts were a fiscal solution to the recession into which the US had slid in 2001. Due to an increase in government spending due to the war in Afghanistan and tax cuts, aggregate demand was sufficiently stimulated in order to avert the worst of it and make for a soft landing. No, wars aren't cheap, but trying to fight one while the country is on the economic back foot is even more difficult. In this case, he did have a reason for issuing tax cuts concurrently with declaring war; in fact, the tax cuts were a viable solution to the problem. Of course, they have may created more problems in the process, but that's another matter.

It's not authoritarian to limit the rights of those who so callously limit the rights of others.

So are you in favor of revoking the rights of those who are proponents of income taxes? The "rights" of the American people are limited by the fact that they are coerced into transferring a portion of their earnings to the federal government. Should almost every single congressman be punished for that stance?

We should not tax the terrorists. The should be free to live how they like without the government trying to force them into the mainstream lifestyle.

Thought the same thing when I first saw the thread title.

What, he wants me to help pay for the continuation of this fucked-up war? No way. Just try to get your terrorism tax out of me, Joe. You'll never see a cent.

Here's an idea: Put a terror tax on gasoline. That would actually help by cutting off our enemies' source of funding; it would also highlight to people the very real fact that their wasteful consumption of oil is enabling our enemies to get the kind of funding they need to continue attacks against us and our allies. Even better, it would spur development of alternatives and cut our CO2 emissions, fighting global warming and creating jobs in the US through increased investment in the high-tech, high-paying alternative energy sector.
I assume you have heard of and support the Pigou club then?

If this goes through, I won't pay any taxes until it is repealed.

Not that I agree with Bush's tax cuts, but the tax cuts were a fiscal solution to the recession into which the US had slid in 2001. Due to an increase in government spending due to the war in Afghanistan and tax cuts, aggregate demand was sufficiently stimulated in order to avert the worst of it and make for a soft landing. No, wars aren't cheap, but trying to fight one while the country is on the economic back foot is even more difficult. In this case, he did have a reason for issuing tax cuts concurrently with declaring war; in fact, the tax cuts were a viable solution to the problem. Of course, they have may created more problems in the process, but that's another matter.

First of all, war was never declared. The president can't declare war, only congress can. I don't see why he didn't ask for a declaration of war, he could have easily gotten one.

Second, we fought World War II, didn't we? I don't recall the US economy being very strong when we went into that.

So are you in favor of revoking the rights of those who are proponents of income taxes? The "rights" of the American people are limited by the fact that they are coerced into transferring a portion of their earnings to the federal government. Should almost every single congressman be punished for that stance?

Limiting and revoking are two different things. I'm merely suggesting that we have some sort of equality of rights. Property and wealth deny that, and create a "right" to exploit and oppress. We can see that with how clearly our wealthy congress was willing to go to war that they wouldn't have to sacrifice in, but corporate America would gain tremendously from.