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!

Originally Posted by gnu

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!

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Could be because the last administration never paid for anything!

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?

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Could be because the last administration never paid for anything!

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 !

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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 !!!!

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.

Just another money grab.

How about war bonds?

Yoda

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.

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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 !

Originally Posted by cashman

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

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Could be because the last administration never paid for anything!

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

Originally Posted by cashman

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!

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