Would you support a 'War on terrorism tax'?

BWG · Feb 13, 2007

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut proposed a "war on terrorism tax" at a Senate hearing during which he said the Pentagon's $622 billion defense budget proposal for fiscal 2008 threatened to crowd out funds for domestic programs.

"I think we have to start thinking about a war on terrorism tax," Lieberman said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Bush's defense budget. "I mean, people keep saying we're not asking a sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war and some civilians who are working on it."

ABC News

Inuyasha · Feb 13, 2007

Well Joe dodn't waste much time telling us he's still a democrat. More taxes. Go going Joe.

DeeJayH · Feb 13, 2007

might have helped stir debate if you did not give such retarded answers in your poll

war is war, it happens
we do not need a special war tax
Joe has lost quite a few notches of popularity, atleast by me, who actually liked him

Inuyasha · Feb 13, 2007

DeeJayH said:
might have helped stir debate if you did not give such retarded answers in your poll

war is war, it happens
we do not need a special war tax
Joe has lost quite a few notches of popularity, atleast by me, who actually liked him

I agree. The question is loaded. There is no connection between "supporting the troops" and a "war tax". This "support the troops" phrase has been so misused that it no longer has much value or a least it is certainly losing strengh and value.

DeeJayH · Feb 13, 2007

Inuyasha said:
I agree. The question is loaded. There is no connection between "supporting the troops" and a "war tax". This "support the troops" phrase has been so misused that it no longer has much value or a least it is certainly losing strengh and value.

i was actually refering to the 'pass the buck to the next generation BS
but that is also correct
kudos

Navy Pride · Feb 13, 2007

Cut taxes and keep cutting them....It increases revenue

Iriemon · Feb 13, 2007

Navy Pride said:
Cut taxes and keep cutting them....It increases revenue

Thanks for the econ lesson, Rush.

But heck, why raise taxes? The Govt has borrowed $3 trillion in the last 5 years, and America hasn't collapsed. Heck, revenues are higher now than they were in 2000. So let's just keep doing that.

In fact, they ought to cut taxes to about 5%. Revenues will be up (in about 20 years or so), and the Govt can borrow $2 1/2 trillion a year.

Navy Pride · Feb 13, 2007

Iriemon said:
Thanks for the econ lesson, Rush.

But heck, why raise taxes? The Govt has borrowed $3 trillion in the last 5 years, and America hasn't collapsed. Heck, revenues are higher now than they were in 2000. So let's just keep doing that.

In fact, they ought to cut taxes to about 5%. Revenues will be back up in about 20 years or so, and the Govt can just borrow $2 1/2 trillion a year.

No problem, any time I can teach you something.................JFK, RR, and GWB all proved it.....

Iriemon · Feb 13, 2007

Navy Pride said:
No problem, any time I can teach you something.................JFK, RR, and GWB all proved it.....

I'll go with JFK too. Make the top rate 70% like he did.

BrewBreaker12 · Feb 13, 2007

How exactly do you lower the nationl debt by decreasing the government's revenue?

BWG · Feb 14, 2007

might have helped stir debate if you did not give such retarded answers in your poll

Hmmmmm, after reading many, many polls on this site I was under the impression that norm for choices to polls were supposed to be flippant. Oh well.

But that still doesn't preclude one from having a plan as to how to pay for the billions of dollars we are spending on the GWOT.

We can 'debit or credit'. Of course with debit we'd have to have the funds in the first place. Republic elected Joe proposes taxes. If we go with credit, we can call up our ol' buddies, the Chinese, and go further in debt.

Joe was a hero when the Connecticut Republics dumped their own candidate and voted for the Iraq war supporter. Now that he's suggesting money up front, they're distancing themselves like he's a west Texas rattlesnake (kinda like this poll)...LOL...:lol:

This "support the troops" phrase has been so misused that it no longer has much value or a least it is certainly losing strengh and value.

Yeah, even the cons are beginning to realize that, so now they say that anti-war activists "celebrate" the deaths of American soldiers.

It wouldn't be so tragic if it weren't so true. We can see right through your ilk. Every death helps you justify your jealous hate. Very telling, indeed. You and kidrock enjoy the celebration.

How sad to have to resort to that kind of slander against their fellow Americans.

DeeJayH · Feb 14, 2007

BWG said:
Hmmmmm, after reading many, many polls on this site I was under the impression that norm for choices to polls were supposed to be flippant. Oh well.

you do have a point there
sad, but true

Navy Pride · Feb 14, 2007

BrewBreaker12 said:
How exactly do you lower the nationl debt by decreasing the government's revenue?

The non partisan CBO says you increase revenue by cutting taxes and that is exactly what has been happening.....

Befuddled_Stoner · Feb 15, 2007

Right on, NP! If we keep cutting taxes, and go further and further into the hole, we’ll eventually reach a place where the laws of reality break down and we’ll have infinite money! I do this in video games all the time, so I know it’s true.

Any economist who mentions diminishing returns and the Laffer curve in the same sentence without the words “don’t exist” is full of ****!

The Mark · Feb 15, 2007

Befuddled_Stoner said:
Right on, NP! If we keep cutting taxes, and go further and further into the hole, we’ll eventually reach a place where the laws of reality break down and we’ll have infinite money! I do this in video games all the time, so I know it’s true.

I'm not sure if that theory is sound.....:mrgreen:

However, it is my personal opinion that cutting taxes will raise revenue...to a certain extent.

However, I think a more effective measure would be to cut spending.

Although......perhaps a combination of both would be the best.

Befuddled_Stoner said:
Any economist who mentions diminishing returns and the Laffer curve in the same sentence without the words “don’t exist” is full of ****!

I'm not sure I fully understand this statement, so if you would please clarify?
Also, I didn't know what the Laffer curve was, so......

www.wikipedia.org - Laffer curve

Some info from that page.

Supporting examples said:
Laffer himself has pointed to Russia and the Baltic states who have recently instituted a flat tax with rates lower than 35%, and whose economies started growing soon after implementation.

He has also referred to the economic success following the Kemp-Roth tax act, the Kennedy tax cuts, the 1920s tax cuts, and the changes in US capital gains tax structure in 1997 as examples of how tax cuts can cause the economy to grow and thus increase tax revenue.

In 2006, the US Treasury reported that monthly tax receipts in April reached their second-highest point in the history of the nation, totalling $315.1 billion, second only to April 2001's mark of $332 billion prior to the burst of the Internet stock bubble. These results contradicted dire predictions in the wake of enactment of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, suggesting that the US was still on the right half of the Laffer Curve.

Interesting. I highlighted the part I found most interesting.

Iriemon · Feb 15, 2007

Navy Pride said:
The non partisan CBO says you increase revenue by cutting taxes and that is exactly what has been happening.....

Where did the CBO say that? Or is this more of the classic NP "make up facts to support a BS argument" tactic?

Predicted response: 1) no response, or 2) "look it up yourself"

Iriemon · Feb 15, 2007

The Mark said:
I'm not sure if that theory is sound.....:mrgreen:

However, it is my personal opinion that cutting taxes will raise revenue...to a certain extent.

What is your personal opinion based upon?

However, I think a more effective measure would be to cut spending.

I agree spending should be cut. Unfortunately, we have elected gutless panderers into office for the past 6 years.

If Congress doesn't cut spending, do you think the Govt should raise tax, or just keep borrowing $1/2 trillion more every year?

Although......perhaps a combination of both would be the best.

Hear hear! One of the few people I have ever seen that says this, which is exactly what the Govt needs to do to restore fiscal responsibility.

Would you support a 'War on terrorism tax'?