You know what, I think I approve of the POTUS's speech tonight. For many years, I've said that we (USA) are not our brother's keeper. How does that grab you?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/30cda/30cda733e77272f37aba03aab51854db7e3729cc" alt="Patriot :patriot:"
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Yepper, wars cost money; money that perhaps could go toward alleviatng domestic issues rather than er, uh...well, you know. I never thought I'd say something like that but, I've never been this old before.joe817 wrote:He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.
What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.
joe817 wrote:He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.
What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.
An historic point! WWI and WWII were largely supported by War Bonds sold on the home front, weren't they?nitrogen wrote:joe817 wrote:He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.
What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.
I agree with a war tax. If a war is important enough to fight, it is important enough to pay for with an extra tax, and if we support the war, we should support paying for it.
Better than the 30,000 additional troops Obama wants to send to Afghanisatan.Oldgringo wrote:You know what, I think I approve of the POTUS's speech tonight. For many years, I've said that we (USA) are not our brother's keeper. How does that grab you?
I disagree with a war tax for the same reason. You're right that if you support the war, you should support paying for it. The right thing to do is allow people to make voluntary contributions and the government will spend that on the mideast wars but not a penny more.nitrogen wrote:I agree with a war tax. If a war is important enough to fight, it is important enough to pay for with an extra tax, and if we support the war, we should support paying for it.
Yes, through voluntary war bonds, just like WW2.nitrogen wrote:joe817 wrote:He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.
What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.
I agree with a war tax. If a war is important enough to fight, it is important enough to pay for with an extra tax, and if we support the war, we should support paying for it.
I'm not too sure how I feel about war bonds as the sole means of financing military campaigns and providing for the national defense is one of few enumerated powers of the Fed. It's certainly the ideal way to go. However, I would like all deployments to require a formal Declaration of War as well. Ideally.Oldgringo wrote: An historic point! WWI and WWII were largely supported by War Bonds sold on the home front, weren't they?
Good point.longtooth wrote:Fact is when the war is over & every troop is back on American soil the tax will not go away no matter what they promice.
It is very strange...the typical ANA Soldier (we had a company attached to our FOB) appears to have no marksmanship skills. The typical Pashtun Insurgent (there are plenty of groups besides the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighting us) has a reputation for being fierce Marksmen throughout the centuries. It makes me wonder where we are pulling the ANA recruits from (there are many ethnic groups in Afghanistan, which is another issue when trying to unify a country).surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Did you notice that no particular promises were made as to what
would be accomplished by the time we pull out in 2011?
President Karzai runs a corrupt government. Everyone's on the take
and no one is taking care of the people. Karzai's brother is a bigtime doper.
What about this foolishness that we Americans have to train the ANA
(Afghan National Army) to shoot?? Aren't all Afghani boys given an AK-47
as soon as they can walk? It's their country, and if they can't find the
Taliban, it's because they don't want to find the Taliban.
The Taliban are resurgent because Karzai's a bum and the people don't support
him, especially after he just stole the election. He is derided as being the "Mayor
of Kabul" since the federal government is weak outside of the capital city.
Recent interviews of American military personnel in theater have included several
comments that we ought to leave since the Afghans have to sort out their own
problems.
It seems to me that the troop surge announced in tonight's speech may do some good,
but when 2011 rolls around we're going to leave and let the Afghans kill each other any way they
want.
SIA