War tax?

[Guest]

You gotta love it! The feds are now proposing a new "War Tax" to pay for our military spending in Afghanistan and Pakistan!

Well, lets see, the Democrats need money to fund BO's spending in all areas, we can't pull off raising Federal taxes and still make BO look good, so we'll tax only those earning over $150K to pay for the war and we'll be loved buy the Democratic voting block.

Just goes to show one how stupid our elected leadership thinks we are, and how stupid we really are if we let the Feds get away with it!

[Guest]

You gotta love it! The feds are now proposing a new "War Tax" to pay for our military spending in Afghanistan and Pakistan!

Well, lets see, the Democrats need money to fund BO's spending in all areas, we can't pull off raising Federal taxes and still make BO look good, so we'll tax only those earning over $150K to pay for the war and we'll be loved buy the Democratic voting block.

Just goes to show one how stupid our elected leadership thinks we are, and how stupid we really are if we let the Feds get away with it!

Could be because the last administration never paid for anything! :read:

[Guest]

Could be because the last administration never paid for anything! :read:

Lets see. BO raises the debt from 880 billion to over three TRILLION and somehow, in your mind, that makes it the Bush era's fault?

[Guest]

Could be because the last administration never paid for anything! :read:

FROM SEPTEMBER 23 OF THIS YEAR....

"Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals.

During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54400


This is certainly not in defense of Bush, but your contempt for the last administration seems to be getting in the way of facts and what is really going on !

In that same article, they referred to an Obama speech made in West Virginia where he was giving the business to Bush (and McCain) and saying how they had raised the debt, saying for example “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”

And from that article........"In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”


All of this before we even discuss much of the stimulus health bill, etc. Just remember that we all know that Bush overspent, but this administration is making him look like an amateur, and consistently blaming another President is like having your head in the sand !

[Guest]

Before I pass judgement I'd like to see how they define "welfare spending". They're a big vague about that - but if includes Social Security benefits, then they're just spinning numbers to suit themselves. Notice they don't say how much Bush spent on welfare. For a fair comparison between the administrations, you have to compare similar numbers. I mean, you could just as easily say that Obama is spending more on welfare than Bush spent on Amtrak. ...and the numbers I've seen on Iraq and Afghanistan can be in excess of a TRILLION, depending on how you count.

[Guest]

Before I pass judgement I'd like to see how they define "welfare spending". They're a big vague about that - but if includes Social Security benefits, then they're just spinning numbers to suit themselves. Notice they don't say how much Bush spent on welfare. For a fair comparison between the administrations, you have to compare similar numbers. I mean, you could just as easily say that Obama is spending more on welfare than Bush spent on Amtrak. ...and the numbers I've seen on Iraq and Afghanistan can be in excess of a TRILLION, depending on how you count.

Your defense of this president and condemnation of the past is impressive and expected...since you didnt read the link....this from the link...

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

"According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history."

Now please read this sentence.....

"Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says"

All of this was in the link provided !!!

Apologies to Tony...I know that is a lot of quotes from one article but hard to have an intelligent discussion if folks dont read the links provided.

I enjoy reading links even if I disagree with the poster...good way to learn stuff !!!!

[Guest]

Thanks for paying attention to that Bucco.

The amount you cut and pasted, though, seems to fit into the fair use classification for education and criticism.

[Guest]

Just another money grab.

How about war bonds?

Yoda

[Guest]

I very much DID read the reference. The part I keyed on was "These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services " - especially the "various social services" part.

Mind you, one of the reasons that Medicaid is going up is because of Bush and Congress getting together for the prescription drug plan - a HUGE increased cost that's getting worse every year.

You complain about Obama's spending plan and then quote the huge increases that run right through the BUSH years.

The ONLY time that spending was even SOMEWHAT under control was when Clinton was in office with a Republican legislature holding his feet to the fire. When Bush got in, they spent money like drunken sailors and it's only getting worse now - with the 'justification' of stimulus spending.

I have no faith that the current administration will learn how to put the brakes on spending as the economy inevitably recovers.

[Guest]

If having intelligent debates is of any interest to you Liberals you will have to stop bashing Bush. You are looking very childish and out of tune with reality.

[Guest]

I very much DID read the reference. The part I keyed on was "These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services " - especially the "various social services" part.

Mind you, one of the reasons that Medicaid is going up is because of Bush and Congress getting together for the prescription drug plan - a HUGE increased cost that's getting worse every year.

You complain about Obama's spending plan and then quote the huge increases that run right through the BUSH years.

The ONLY time that spending was even SOMEWHAT under control was when Clinton was in office with a Republican legislature holding his feet to the fire. When Bush got in, they spent money like drunken sailors and it's only getting worse now - with the 'justification' of stimulus spending.

I have no faith that the current administration will learn how to put the brakes on spending as the economy inevitably recovers.


What is it with you and others and Bush ????? Nobody...NOONE has ever defended the spending of Bush, but you cant have a conversatioin about CURRENT events or CURRENT spending without hearing you folks talk about Bush !

And please dont explain to me the relativity between the two...I, and everyone else gets it...ok....we are talking about what is HAPPENING NOW...CURRENT ! Nobody dumped Bush spending on Obama !

You folks who worship at the feet of this administration and feel the last administration were devils incarnate had better get your thoughts and minds in the current time and do it quickly ! This election was decided based on those two things and as long as it continues....the love and hate things....we are in serious trouble IMHO !

[Guest]

If having intelligent debates is of any interest to you Liberals you will have to stop bashing Bush. You are looking very childish and out of tune with reality.

But gee mommy, all the presidents do it.

Yoda

[Guest]

Could be because the last administration never paid for anything! :read:

Will you ever stop bashing Bush? Will Obama ever be responsible for something that he does wrong?

[Guest]

If having intelligent debates is of any interest to you Liberals you will have to stop bashing Bush. You are looking very childish and out of tune with reality.

Liberals are not in touch with reality??? That's a joke! I suppose the 8 years of the Bush Administration was just a bad dream. It seems that you cannot face the reality of all that was inherited by this previous administration. Oh, yes, we'll pretend the previous 8 years didn't exist, then maybe it will go away!

Ha! :ohdear:

[Guest]

to help keep the unemployed...gainfully unemployed...the same creativity can be used to finance the Countries Wars....just as they have always done to date.

When all gets said and done...spending is spending...and we are doing yeoman's duty in that regard in the current administration.

Why put such an emphasis on the paltry $30 billion and call it a War Tax....do the dolts in Washington figure we are more amenable to a "war tax" nomenclature than let's say....an "unemployment tax"?

Accounting 101....the source of funds.... revenue....from whence comes the money....does it not all come from the same source? You know the same source that is already inadequate to FUND ALL THE OTHER CURRENT PROGRAMS on the table.

If only we the people could have the same opportunity to spend freely, and completely ignore whether we have the resources to meet the commitment...and completely ignore whether there is enough money to get the next want satisfied. How nice that would be? Yes if it is a stupid concept for us....why is Washington immune from the same disciplines and controls.

Extending unemployment accomplishes two goals. One it buys votes and two it keeps the unemployed.....unemployed. Why go to work when uncle sammie will continue to pay for you to stay home?

Why end the war.....any war....when uncle sammie can just keep printing money and commiting our most precious...irreplaceable commodity...our Americans who serve and protect.

Politicians making decisions for the benefit of politicians.....NO MATTER THE PARTY.

btk

PS maybe uncle sammie should consider some kind of Christmas bonus tax for the unemployed.... to keep them whole....happy ....and voting:a20:

[Guest]

Why is every reference to Bush "bashing Bush" when the ORIGINAL POST - the very article reference brough him up? It's sounding like "I can bash Obama by comparing apples and oranges to Bush but you can't bash Bush when trying to make the comparison more apples to apples."

Let me state this clearly. I supported and defended Bush for quite some time while he was in office. During that time he abandoned the principles of the Republican Party that I agreed with. I watched our civil rights get run over by a truck. I watched welfare get expanded with the Farm Bill and the Prescription Drug Plan - corporate welfare, but welfare nonetheless. I watched our government hire private contractors to do the work our soldiers were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and pay those private contractors 400% of what our soldiers get - with no liabilities and free from criminal prosecution when things went wrong.

Let me make something else clear, if Obama keeps up the unchecked accelerated spending, he'll be just as bad as Bush was.

Why so much Bush bashing - at least by your definition? Because he was the worst President since LBJ. Even *Carter* didn't wreck the economy the way Bush did - and make no mistake, Republicans were giving handouts to the banks that caused this by repealing regulations. TRILLIONS of dollars in lost assets. Retirement fund ground into dust by these criminals - and we had to pay RANSOM to bail them out! (And I used to work in that industry - let me tell you, the employees didn't see a lot of those billions)

[And the only reason I mention LBJ is because he created the "Great Society" programs that seem to have been instrumental in changing the mindset of many in this country to one of entitlement]

Even if you hated Reagan, he produced a recovery and was instrumental in the fall of the USSR. And let's not forget that the recovery didn't happen for a couple of years after - does this sound familiar - he INHERITED CARTER'S MESS.

If you hated Bush the elder, it was because he seemed out of touch - but the recession on his watch was CHILD'S PLAY compared to what we have now.

Bush the younger doesn't have any of those redeeming qualities. He started off good by going into Afghanistan and now we learn we had bin Laden IN OUR REACH and let him get away because, among other reasons, Bush diverted resources to Iraq.

Obama hasn't been in office for a year and you want to lay everything at his feet - blaming him for everything and yet giving a free pass to the batch of self-centered autocrats who MADE the mess?

Obama will at the very least be the beneficiary of the normal business cycle. How much he affects that process, for good or bad, remains to be seen. THOSE things are what Obama will be responsible for and how he's judged.

[Guest]

who made what mess or caused what to happen/not happen on whose watch or not.

It is simply no different than corporate America. When one takes the helm of a new position from supervisor to CEO to Chairman of the Board....they own it from day one!!!! All of it. There is no such thing as trying to sort that which the previous regime did or didn't or caused or not. It is just not done.

All of the rhetoric about what Obama (and the same for ANY predecessor...pick one) has inherited is pure unadulterated BS...dodge and weave and attempting to disclaim responsibility.

The man got elected by telling all his followers about how bad the economy was and how was the man to (dare I say it?) "change" how things got done in Washington. Different name on the door. Same-o same-o method of operating in Washington by the same old players. Spending records of all past POTUS have been broken and spending continues.

Status? The system of government is as broken as it ever was under what ever POTUS you want to pick. The tactic of spending our way out of it has been proven time and again throughout history. There is no traceable evidence that any of the spending is responsible for any improvements to date (what were they???)....no plan....no traceability....no accountability...play the blame game as long as possible.

Yes when the economy does improve, WHO EVER is in office at the time will take credit for it...it is a political joke.

btk

[Guest]

Why is every reference to Bush "bashing Bush" when the ORIGINAL POST - the very article reference brough him up? It's sounding like "I can bash Obama by comparing apples and oranges to Bush but you can't bash Bush when trying to make the comparison more apples to apples."

Let me state this clearly. I supported and defended Bush for quite some time while he was in office. During that time he abandoned the principles of the Republican Party that I agreed with. I watched our civil rights get run over by a truck. I watched welfare get expanded with the Farm Bill and the Prescription Drug Plan - corporate welfare, but welfare nonetheless. I watched our government hire private contractors to do the work our soldiers were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and pay those private contractors 400% of what our soldiers get - with no liabilities and free from criminal prosecution when things went wrong.

Let me make something else clear, if Obama keeps up the unchecked accelerated spending, he'll be just as bad as Bush was.

Why so much Bush bashing - at least by your definition? Because he was the worst President since LBJ. Even *Carter* didn't wreck the economy the way Bush did - and make no mistake, Republicans were giving handouts to the banks that caused this by repealing regulations. TRILLIONS of dollars in lost assets. Retirement fund ground into dust by these criminals - and we had to pay RANSOM to bail them out! (And I used to work in that industry - let me tell you, the employees didn't see a lot of those billions)

[And the only reason I mention LBJ is because he created the "Great Society" programs that seem to have been instrumental in changing the mindset of many in this country to one of entitlement]

Even if you hated Reagan, he produced a recovery and was instrumental in the fall of the USSR. And let's not forget that the recovery didn't happen for a couple of years after - does this sound familiar - he INHERITED CARTER'S MESS.

If you hated Bush the elder, it was because he seemed out of touch - but the recession on his watch was CHILD'S PLAY compared to what we have now.

Bush the younger doesn't have any of those redeeming qualities. He started off good by going into Afghanistan and now we learn we had bin Laden IN OUR REACH and let him get away because, among other reasons, Bush diverted resources to Iraq.

Obama hasn't been in office for a year and you want to lay everything at his feet - blaming him for everything and yet giving a free pass to the batch of self-centered autocrats who MADE the mess?

Obama will at the very least be the beneficiary of the normal business cycle. How much he affects that process, for good or bad, remains to be seen. THOSE things are what Obama will be responsible for and how he's judged.


In this thread the very first mention of Bush was this ....

"Could be because the last administration never paid for anything!"

This was in response to the first post of the thread which talked about the "war tax" being discussed.

Everything then went from there to a discussion of Bush spending and NO DISCUSSION of the potential WAR TAX,, which in fact was the beginning of this thread ! My post and the others were responding to that alone !

Now, even now your post does not mention the WAR TAX !!

I plead guilty to being sidetracked when the Bush stuff started....that seems to be the response to so many discussions. I suppose he is responsible for anything and everything but only the bad stuff !

[Guest]

Why is every reference to Bush "bashing Bush" when the ORIGINAL POST - the very article reference brough him up? It's sounding like "I can bash Obama by comparing apples and oranges to Bush but you can't bash Bush when trying to make the comparison more apples to apples."

Let me state this clearly. I supported and defended Bush for quite some time while he was in office. During that time he abandoned the principles of the Republican Party that I agreed with. I watched our civil rights get run over by a truck. I watched welfare get expanded with the Farm Bill and the Prescription Drug Plan - corporate welfare, but welfare nonetheless. I watched our government hire private contractors to do the work our soldiers were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and pay those private contractors 400% of what our soldiers get - with no liabilities and free from criminal prosecution when things went wrong.

Let me make something else clear, if Obama keeps up the unchecked accelerated spending, he'll be just as bad as Bush was.

Why so much Bush bashing - at least by your definition? Because he was the worst President since LBJ. Even *Carter* didn't wreck the economy the way Bush did - and make no mistake, Republicans were giving handouts to the banks that caused this by repealing regulations. TRILLIONS of dollars in lost assets. Retirement fund ground into dust by these criminals - and we had to pay RANSOM to bail them out! (And I used to work in that industry - let me tell you, the employees didn't see a lot of those billions)

[And the only reason I mention LBJ is because he created the "Great Society" programs that seem to have been instrumental in changing the mindset of many in this country to one of entitlement]

Even if you hated Reagan, he produced a recovery and was instrumental in the fall of the USSR. And let's not forget that the recovery didn't happen for a couple of years after - does this sound familiar - he INHERITED CARTER'S MESS.

If you hated Bush the elder, it was because he seemed out of touch - but the recession on his watch was CHILD'S PLAY compared to what we have now.

Bush the younger doesn't have any of those redeeming qualities. He started off good by going into Afghanistan and now we learn we had bin Laden IN OUR REACH and let him get away because, among other reasons, Bush diverted resources to Iraq.

Obama hasn't been in office for a year and you want to lay everything at his feet - blaming him for everything and yet giving a free pass to the batch of self-centered autocrats who MADE the mess?

Obama will at the very least be the beneficiary of the normal business cycle. How much he affects that process, for good or bad, remains to be seen. THOSE things are what Obama will be responsible for and how he's judged.

We have a tendency to look back at Clinton as economically responsible and he was to a large degree with the help of the Republican Congress who worked to cut welfare spending and killed Hillarycare. The Clinton budget surpluses were fueled by the explosion of tech stock values and the consequent increase in capital gains tax receipts.

The tech stock bubble crash started in March 2000, just three months before the end of the last fiscal year of the Clinton administration. The economy contracted and was actually in recession when Bush took office. The economy was severely damaged by the 911 attacks - we tend to forget grounding of all airlines, feverish preparations for improved security, etc.

War in Iraq and Afghanistan together with the ill advised prescription program made it worse.