No money for nothing' Obey: No surge without a tax
Jack Linthicum
unless we levy a tax on the war in Afghanistan. Obey has tried this
before. Basically, the Republicans run up the national debt so the
Democrats can't start any of their "socialist" ideas like medical care
and jobs. When the Democrats balanced the budget the Republicans go
out and start a war and give tax breaks to the rich so the debt will
rise past any capability of funding any more socialism.
Get ready for a nice 1 to 5% surcharge on your next income tax bill.
Obey used to be a neighbor.
No money for nothing'
Obey: No surge without a tax
By POLITICO STAFF | 11/23/09 6:45 AM
Obey: No surge without a tax
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey plans to demand a
new surtax to pay for any new troop increases in Afghanistan, ABC News
reports.
"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, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to
sending any more US troops to Afghanistan and says if President Obama
decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war
surtax" -- to pay for it. Obey's opposition to funding a troop
increase in Afghanistan without a new tax would pose a significant
problem for President Obama if he decides to send more troops (a
decision the White House says the President could [announce] as early
as November 30). 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 over $200,000 a year to pay for sending any
additional troops. Although Obey argues that the tax should be paid by
all taxpayers, ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5
percent for the wealthy. ?
"That's what happened with the Vietnam War, which wiped out the Great
Society," Obey said. "That's what happened with the Korean War, which
wiped out Harry Truman's Square Deal. That's what happened with the
end of the progressive movement before the twenties when we went into
World War I. In each case, the cost of those wars shut off our ability
to pay for anything else."
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Don't complain, son, you supported the wars.
;-)
--
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
>
> --
> Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
> no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
>
> definition:
> murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
You don't know David Obey, I do.
Ray O'Hara
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6fb8d64a-00d2-4a20...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
this supposes the repubnots can do planning for future times and the
Bush/Cheney/Rove cabal thought they were creating a "permanent Republican
majority".
David E. Powell
In the 1980s social spending blew military spending away by a ton.
Today way more money went into auto bailouts, stimulus money to
congressional districts that don't exist, and other social programs
than the military.
Saying the military is the biggest budget item in DC now requires
ignoring a lot of programs that dwarf it in spending.
Of course it may just be a side way of pushing for taxes to cover the
stimulus by saying it is needed for the war, as a side door. This is
the most likely possibility.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
And the reduction of taxes by both Reagan and Bush had no effect,
during their terms. But later.
dott.Piergiorgio
[SNIP]
> "That's what happened with the Korean War, which
> wiped out Harry Truman's Square Deal. That's what happened with the
> end of the progressive movement before the twenties when we went into
> World War I. In each case, the cost of those wars shut off our ability
> to pay for anything else."
uh.. If the journalist has mixed up Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal with
Harry Truman's Fair Deal...
US seems quickly approaching the very low Italian standards in political
debate & partisanism , and this is a really worrisome thing
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
David E. Powell
wrote:
Actually the Reagan tax cuts had a huge effect. Revenues collected by
the government skyrocketed.
tankfixer
dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it says...
We have yet to reach your standards in women elected to high office..
So far no former porn starlets in Congress..
Jack Linthicum
And the deficits increased til the next change of parties occured.
Jack Linthicum
One of those wingnuts, Paul Krugman, in a column from last year.
January 17, 2008, 7:03 pm
Reagan and revenue
Ah - commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:
Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.
Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan
Administration.
Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have
accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to
correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to
make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980
to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates)
are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.
But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period
— better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting.
In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24
percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to
2000.
Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the
Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in
highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make
the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth?
Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a
serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.
Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue
here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the
reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to
administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still
revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per
capita over some cycles:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero
Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me
neither.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/?pagemode=print
dott.Piergiorgio
> We have yet to reach your standards in women elected to high office..
> So far no former porn starlets in Congress..
Cicciolina was a fluke, and she wasn't reelected (side note for a laugh,
the Italian political colloqualism for a not elected/reelected
politician is "trombato", whose has also the same colloqual meaning of
the english "fucked" in the "making sex" meaning :DDDDDDD)
But at least a porn star is sincere, in a certain sense, about her use
of her pussy, and now seems certain that some current female MP here
have obtained their seats by pussy means.....
Jack Linthicum
Happens in America too, especially in Louisiana.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/stormy-daniels-porn-star_n_194554.html
Matt Wiser
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/stormy-daniels-porn-star_n_194554.h
tml
And in California: Remember Mary Carey? She ran for Governor during the '03
recall of Grey Davis.
hcobb
gasoline?
The more the Americans are taxed out of using gas, the less money they
will send to our terrorist supporting allies in the Middle East.
-HJC
Ray O'Hara
"Matt Wiser" <MattWi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4KqPm.74693$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
yeah, so didn'r Gary Coleman.