Democrats warn if Obama sends more troops , they will add a new tax

[Modelworks]

This is getting out of control. Either bring the troops home or toss that piece of crap health care bill in the trash and give them the troops. We should send the politicians to fight on the front lines. I see why morale is dropping Afghanistan. Imagine being there needing more help and being told, we'll get to it, maybe.

They are playing with peoples lives like it is some game.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-david-obey-warns-president-obama-afghanistan-war/story?id=9126805

The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it.

"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

Obey's opposition to funding a troop increase in Afghanistan without a new tax would pose a significant problem for Obama if he decides to send more troops (a decision the White House says the President could make as early as November 30).

As Appropriations Committee chairman, Obey was a key player in securing money for the war when the last war funding bill narrowly passed the House in June.

His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops.

Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy.

The White House won't be able to count on Obey's support the next time the president seeks funding for the war.

"I want the president and every American to think ahead of time about what it means if you do add to our involvement in Afghanistan," Obey told ABC News. "I am no military strategist, but I don't believe we have the tools to accomplish our mission in Afghanistan because you have to have functioning, effective government and there isn't one in Afghanistan. There isn't one in Pakistan either."

Video interview on the site.

 

[waggy]

Well something has to be done. We are increasing the burden on tax payers with all the bailouts, give aways, and UHC.

if we are going to continue in Iraq/Afghanistan and everything else we need to come up with the money from somewhere. only way i can see it is to raise tax's.

 

[MotF Bane]

They have absolutely forgotten they are there for the best interests of the people. This is fucking insane.

 

[Genx87]

I vote get out. Nobody has ever won in Afghanistan, we wont be the first I think.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hey, let's start a 5% tax for the war, then steal it to hide the cost of the upcoming cost shifting legislation. Then we pull everyone out of Afghanistan, and not repeal the tax. Sounds like a sure fire DC plan to me.

 

[waggy]

Hey, let's start a 5% tax for the war, then steal it to hide the cost of the upcoming cost shifting legislation. Then we pull everyone out of Afghanistan, and not repeal the tax. Sounds like a sure fire DC plan to me.

whoa..you in politics? im sure you got it right.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I vote get out. Nobody has ever won in Afghanistan, we wont be the first I think.

No matter what we do we left ourselves in a situation where we are screwed.

We stay in Afghanistan and we spend tons of money and lives to accomplish nothing. The populace eventually turns against us an the Taliban we drove out retake power.

We leave, the Taliban retake power and now have an effective base of operations and can declare that they defeated the mightiest military in the world.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Righties try to forget who put us in Afghanistan, and who allowed the situation to deteriorate for 6+ years. Their Heroes.

Righties are also the same people who claim that the "Surge" is what stabilized the situation in Iraq... hopefully allowing our exit some time RSN...

They don't realize that The last 8 years of profligate spending and taxcuts at the top have left Uncle Sam tapped out, particularly after the bailout of the banks, again necessitated by their Heroes.

Basically, Afghanistan is a mess of their own making, as is the state of the economy, the treasury and the dollar.

But to hear them tell it, it's all Obama's fault, and anything he or the Dems try to do to fix it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Raise taxes? Kinda looks like we need to do that, if only at the very top... Righties *do* want to lower deficits, right? But, of course, they just want to cut to do it, just not the stuff they love, like big military, big security, etc... and of course, no cuts whatsoever to their biggest voting bloc, seniors- their loyalty was bought and paid for with the senior drug benefit, even though it's mostly a sop and a subsidy for big Pharma...

 

[Modelworks]

Heh. Righties try to forget who put us in Afghanistan, and who allowed the situation to deteriorate for 6+ years. Their Heroes.

Here is my position. I don't give a damn who started it and neither should anyone else. I don't care if Bush is evil or if Obama bowed wrong. I don't care what the budget will be , who gets millions for their state or what each party is doing.

For months now soldiers have waited for a decision. Many have died that would not have, had they had the troops they needed. When those soldiers went they went with the idea that we would be with them . Not standing around jerking off. They need to stop talking about it like it some campaign topic and act. Either bring them home or get them the troops. I don't care about world policy , terrorists or anything else right now. All I know is I have friends and family who get to risk their life while some politicians play a game of I'm right and your wrong. Pulling this kind of stunt of "well we will raise taxes" shows total dis-respect for the military. If Obey wants to impress someone with speeches how about one of " My state is going to step up and provide a share of the money needed for these troops to be reinforced or come home and I ask others to follow" .

He knows that pulling this stunt means that it could add more time to the debate of what to do.

 

[Lemon law]

As Obama still mulls his options in Afghanistan, and somewhat has to back track on campaign promises because no one really knew how badly GWB&co had screwed up Afghanistan, our OP is still putting the cart before the horse.

Lets wait until Obama decides, then I have little doubt Obama will then be able to sell his plan to the American people. After that he has to deliver results, and its almost certain any Obama policy will be infinitely superior to the GWB eight year clusterfuck.

Then the question will be, can we make forward progress or will we continue to move backwards? Obama has many options, in a week or so we will know which ones he picks.

 

[Fear No Evil]

As Obama still mulls his options in Afghanistan, and somewhat has to back track on campaign promises because no one really knew how badly GWB&co had screwed up Afghanistan, our OP is still putting the cart before the horse.

Lets wait until Obama decides, then I have little doubt Obama will then be able to sell his plan to the American people. After that he has to deliver results, and its almost certain any Obama policy will be infinitely superior to the GWB eight year clusterfuck.

Then the question will be, can we make forward progress or will we continue to move backwards? Obama has many options, in a week or so we will know which ones he picks.

Translation: But Bush! Obama is trying hard. GWB! ARGGHHHH!! WARGARBRL!!!!!

Fact: More troops have died this year under Obama's 'plan' and 'leadership' than any other year under Bush. If thats what you mean by 'moving foward' and 'infinitely superior' then I guess we are speaking a different language.

~630 U.S. soldiers died under Bush's command in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2008. ~297 U.S. soldiers have died under Obama's 'wait wait wait wait wait wait' policy and there is still over a month to go in the year. Obama needs to make a god damned decision before more of our troops DIE under HIS command which has been MISERABLE.

 

[Patranus]

I find it funny how these Democrats said this would be an "across the board" tax.

Well 47% of "taxes" payers either pay no taxes or get a tax credit. So who gets to pay this tax? The middle class.

Good job Democrats. Good job.

 

[Lemon law]

Fear No Evil bleats, "Fact: More troops have died this year under Obama's 'plan' and 'leadership' than any other year under Bush. If thats what you mean by 'moving foward' and 'infinitely superior' then I guess we are speaking a different language."

Which is an interception based on bogus reasoning. The fact is that the Taliban movement has been growing steadily and has now reached critical mass. Its would be far worse in 2009 if Pakistan had not put increased pressure obn the Taliban in their Tribal regions, but its now apparent to anyone with any brains that the military solution strategy to beat the Taliban was foolish from the start.

And unless the military solution strategy is changed, and the aces that Obama can play with a political strategy are not played, there will be no hope of salvaging anything in Afghanistan. As it is, even before Obama had took office, the Taliban was already in control of 85% of Afghanistan. And with that kind of control, the Taliban can become increasingly the aggressors. And even under GWB Nato troop causalities were on the same upward climb and that upward climb will continue until policy is changed.

We need a policy that will reverse those trend lines, Afghanistan has been one of my signature issues, I have been warning exactly this would happen for four years running, I have advocated the policies we now need, and now I have to wait to see if Obama will do.

 

[alphatarget1]

Are we going to be able to really stabilize Afghanistan and create a "democracy" that will be an ally of the United States? I doubt it. It's time to GTFO and maybe use some sort of containment scheme. No other nation wants to step up for this "good war". Even if Taliban comes back to power it would be cheaper to just clear out some old bomb arsenals and use it on their government officials. It'll be like Iraqi no fly zone all over again.

It'll be cheaper and American lives wouldn't be lost, plus it'll be cheaper. It's a no brainer.

 

[alchemize]

Why do the dems have this sudden interest in paying for the wars with real money? Something different than the last 7 years?

 

[UberNeuman]

I vote get out. Nobody has ever won in Afghanistan, we wont be the first I think.

I agree.

 

[Pneumothorax]

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[piasabird]

Just fire more government employees and lower their wages. Remember, every time a democrat passes more legislation they create more and more red tape which raises the cost of doing business.

Start by firing the man we call the president. His primary job is the commander-in-chief. It is time that congress realize, he is in charge of the military, and it is time for the president to realize he is responsible for the lives of the troops. He took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States . . . .. Maybe we should charge the President and the Commander of the Army with the death of the soldiers in Texas!

 

[Jhhnn]

I find it funny how these Democrats said this would be an "across the board" tax.

Well 47% of "taxes" payers either pay no taxes or get a tax credit. So who gets to pay this tax? The middle class.

Good job Democrats. Good job.

Stop lying, OK?

47% pay no *federal income tax*, which is a far cry from paying no taxes at all. Even the lowest quintile of filers pay ~19% in total taxes, which rises quickly to 27%, maxing out not at the top, but below the top...

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf

Oh, yeh, the top 400 filers paid ~22.5% in federal income taxes, a lower % than the groups just below them...

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/03/30/top-400-taxpayers-income-and-taxes-paid-1992-2005/

I'm confident, however, that you won't allow factual information to alter the formation of your opinions, such as they are...

Edit for clarification about the top 400.

 

[Hacp]

Afghanistan was fine under Bush. Not ok, but it was fine. Then Obama took over and it became IraqII.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I vote get out. Nobody has ever won in Afghanistan, we wont be the first I think.

We do not have the will to commit the resources required, nor do we have the motivation to win. Time to leave before it becomes Vietnam Part II.

 

[Jhhnn]

Afghanistan was fine under Bush. Not ok, but it was fine. Then Obama took over and it became IraqII.

Not exactly- Bush told you it was OK, along with the rest of the Rightwing noise machine, and you believed 'em...

 

[Patranus]

Stop lying, OK?

47% pay no *federal income tax*, which is a far cry from paying no taxes at all.

Are you that dense?

The congressman from the FEDERAL government is talking about raising FEDERAL taxes on income to support FEDERAL spending so it is perfectly reasonable to bring up those 47% who pay no FEDERAL income taxes.

If this discussion was on STATE spending and STATE taxes than you might have a point.

It is just the fact that these congressmen say that these taxes will be across the board yet across the board is only 53% of Americans.

 

[Jhhnn]

We do not have the will to commit the resources required, nor do we have the motivation to win. Time to leave before it becomes Vietnam Part II.

Pretty lame. N Vietnam had a backer, the USSR, who lavished training and materials on them. They also had somewhat of a safe haven in Cambodia and Laos prior to Nixon.

The Mujahedin, aka the Taliban, had a backer, the US, in their fight against the USSR. They also had safe haven in Pakistan.

The Taliban of today have none of that...

Our current problems in Afghanistan come from the fact that the Bush Admin let the situation fester, propped up a corrupt and ineffectual govt, alienated the populace with ham handed tactics, took their eye off the ball in their eagerness to secure the oil riches of Iraq. Just the way it is, their legacy.

Those blunders (I'm being generous) may or may not be reversible. I'm willing to rely on the judgment of those currently in the Executive as to what to do with it all, because they have no ulterior motives- unlike their predecessors, they don't intend to use it as a springboard for further neo-colonial conquest.

 

[Jaskalas]

No matter what we do we left ourselves in a situation where we are screwed.

We stay in Afghanistan and we spend tons of money and lives to accomplish nothing. The populace eventually turns against us an the Taliban we drove out retake power.

We leave, the Taliban retake power and now have an effective base of operations and can declare that they defeated the mightiest military in the world.

We need to pull out. Let them have bases. We can carpet bomb bases.