Friday, November 27, 2009

Health Care or 10 More Years in Afghanistan? Which Would You Rather Pay For?

Congressman David Obey has finally been raising the idea of paying for the war in Afghanistan. 10 more years in Afghanistan will cost $900 billion, about the same as the cost of health care for all Americans. Congressman Obey is finally saying America has to pay for its wars with a progressive tax surcharge specifically meant to pay for the war. Do you think the wealthiest people in this country are willing to pay for the war with 5% of their income? I think I know the answer. Let me know what you say.

23 comments:

vomamike said...

Of course they won't want to pay for it. All those chicken hawks like Limbaugh who are rich fat cats, wouldn't cough up a dime more of their own money to support more war.

Chris said...

Who do you think has been paying the bills? If we add a war tax they will never end the war as that is a cash cow like the war on drugs. When it comes down to it the Democrats don't want to pay taxes as they always point to the wealthy and business to cover what they want. You want health care and you want someone else to pay for it.

Bruce Fealk said...

Chris, the problem is that no one has really been paying the bills for the war. So far we've been charging it on the national credit card with interest.

If we want to keep waging an endless war, wouldn't it be a good idea to have the money up front, instead of paying interest to the Chinese?

Why don't the wealthy Americans whose sons and daughters mostly avoid military service at least step up and say they're willing to pay higher taxes to pay for the war their sons and daughters, for the most part, are not fighting and are not losing their lives or getting life changing injuries.

I want health care for all Americans and I think health care for everyone would have a more positive effect on the economy than waging two seemingly endless wars.

vomamike said...

Chris - now we are getting closer to agreeing on something - the stupid "war on drugs". But it isn't enough to lament such a lame brain idea - we have to ask ourselves why we are still "fighting" this losing war as well. It is not a simple answer. For the most part, I submit that the principle push comes from ideologues who want to control everything we do. That is primarily religious ideologues,but far too many interests are present that profit from keeping so many drugs illegal - especially pot. We ignore the lessons learned from Prohibition.

I submit that it is primarily the wealthy who profit from war Chris. The multi billions that defense contractors gleen from such actions show up as profit. Who benefits from those profits - it certainly isn't you or I? I suggest you do a better job of connecting the dots - and you will find that many if not most, businesses profit from our war policies and the wealthy through their investments in such enterprises, profit the most. So why shouldn't they pay more?

You betcha we want universal health care and I have no compunction that declares those best able to pay for it - should. There is a multitude of reasons why a progressive tax is best, and wise - but I doubt you would agree. I fear you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Chris said...

The problem is neither Obama or Bush care about our debt. Obama has raised our debt like no one has ever done in our history. I just see it as a tax and not a millage for a war. If you add a tax they will never win the war or end it. The incentive is to keep the war going for the income it produces for the Fed.

Chris said...

Mike the war on drugs didn't work. In fact it made things worse. Neither side wants to truly end the war on drug or they would have by now. We could easily pay foir healthcare if we stopped the war on drugs cash cow. Talk about another money pit. Why in the world would we want to do something that would tempt our govt like a new tax? I think the war on drugs fought by both sides and was with good intentions. Since Afghan we have had more opium products then ever before brought into this country. No one like drugs but if doing something doesn't accomplish a viable outcome then we need to change the way we do it. Neither Democrat nor Republican offer up that cash cow war and it's funding.

Chris said...

Mike I say both side care about the wealthy and do things that make the wealth more wealthy. Just look at the tarp and stimulus bills. Almost all of that money went to others not we the people that made the money and need it. Don't forget the too BIG to fail. Most of the money went to the BIG while we the little people got very little if anything at all.

Chris said...

I'm old school as I think if you want something you pay for it. If you can't because of a handicap then we the people need to help. But just because people have money doesn't mean we can take it from just them to give to those that don't pay for what they need is wrong. You on the left are stuck in first gear and can't think past it. Kind of like how the war on drugs wasn't thought through.

Bruce Fealk said...

Chris, I think you're wrong about funding the war. I think if Congress were to tax to pay for the war, the Republicans certainly wouldn't want to do that.

Republicans want to keep borrowing money and paying interest to the Chinese to pay for the war. Democrats area actually the ones that came up with the idea to have a war tax to pay for the war, a sensible idea, I think you'd agree, for those of us that are fiscally responsible.

It's the Democrats that are actually addressing the "too big to fail" issue, which the Republicans never addressed.

As for the so-called war on drugs, something else we agree on. We have lost the war on drugs and a new approach is needed, which is again an issued that Democrats are addressing with new ideas and the Republicans never did address.

Sounds like you should be switching parties, Chris, if those issues are ones you actually care about.

Chris said...

Bruce have you seen what the Democrats have done with the countries borrowing? It's not just Republicans.Actualy the more power the Democrats get the larger the deficite gets. Bruce they could have all the intentions to only tax the top 20% but you and I know it never has ended at that. You know how we paid for the wars in the past and it worked every time. Why try something that has never worked rather then something that has worked every time. Will a Zoo Tax go away,Income tax,SSI, when has a tax been taken away?

Bruce Fealk said...

Chris, prior wars have been financed with tax increases or war bonds or a combination of both.

This is the first war that has been financed totally with debt.

The fact is that if we tried to finance these wars with bonds, I don't think it would raise nearly enough money. I know I wouldn't give one nickel for either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And I do have more faith in government than you do. If the war tax had a sunset date, I believe that that sunset date would be met.

If you believe in the war, you should fight for some form of financing it, whether it's a tax of some kind or some other method.

Chris said...

Have you ever heard of cutting expences so we can afford the war? Our govt needs to make cuts now. Major cuts and our military is the main reason the Fed was made. Now the Fed gets paid to do take care of thoughs that don't fell like it.Nanny State. We need to pay for everything we have and want and need. Obama and the Democrats have done a great job of not paying for anything and Bush did his part too. Like I have pointed out the war on drugs eats up more money then anyone knows and not one word about that war. We all know this is a way the left use to bait conservatives into a corner. But we could do the same with your wants vs needs. We need to cut out all wants of gov't and get down to a needs based funding for govt. It is a shame that the war is a game of politics to the left.

Chris said...

Bruce by the way I want the UN to start fighting the wars they are sticking us with. In other words I never liked the Afghanistan war. I hate war. And I wish we went in war. I also wish we the people didn't pay for the arts when we are broke. The stimulus was the biggest waist of money since the TARP. But you on the left want safty,healthcare,the arts,parks,wellfair,free abortions and whatever you can think of as long as you can stick someone else with the bill. Screw the next generation is the lefts matto.

djtyg said...

"But just because people have money doesn't mean we can take it from just them to give to those that don't pay for what they need is wrong."

Looks like Chris doesn't think the lower classes have given anything in this war.

TSC said...

I vote for 10 more years of war.

Bruce Fealk said...

So, TSC, what do you think 10 more years of war gets us?

vomamike said...

TSC - put your money where your mouth is - the government will accept donations. I'd say your share is about 10 grand.

Bruce Fealk said...

So, Chris, what programs would you cut to pay for the losing proposition of a war in Afghanistan? Tell me exactly what American should go without in order to pay for the war.

The war in Afghanistan has been a zero sum game for the United States, except for the defense contractors, Halliburton, Xe (formerly known as Blackwater) and the rest of the military contractors.

The majority of the American people do not think the war in Afghanistan is worth it and it doesn't make America any safer. In fact, it decreases our security.

8 years is long enough. Bring our troops home now.

vomamike said...

Chris - let us leave aside the argument about whether we should have even gone to war - in either theatre. Now you say we should cut expenses so we can pay for the wars. A little late I would say for Irag, although we are still spending a fortune there too. What should we cut Chris? How about the EPA? Or OSHA? Let us just eliminate the whole department of Agriculture or the Interior - hell we don't need no stinking national parks or forest rangers anyhow. We could save a few bucks if we eliminated The Center for Disease Control. I could go on and on, but it just would further prove just how ignorant your statement was.

djtyg said...

What Chris doesn't want to admit is that there are now more conservatives on food stamps than liberals. The whole idea of "Democrats don't want to pay for anything" is just a deflection from reality. So it goes for the right-wing.

Conservatives are fine with Socialism for themselves. It's when it's given to other people that there's a problem.

Chris said...

What about the arts programs. We give money for rape and graffiti. Is that money well spent in a reccession? We need to take care of the handicap and needy but these stupid programs the libs made up are out of control. Don't talk so stupid saying I would cut funding for the poor. I give of myself and my money to the poor. I think there is more then enough waste in govt to fund the war if we keep up this war. What is so dumb about cutting expences and funding unnecessary. If you were broke would you be dumb enough to go out and spend everything you will have over the next 30 yrs? Why do I even bother? You guy want a free lunch like a bunch of mooches.

Bruce Fealk said...

So, tell me Chris, after you cut a few million for the arts, where do you get the rest of the trillion dollars to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

All the money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been put on the American credit card. Where do you cut to get $1 trillion?

You cannot take care of all of the country's poor on your donations, Chris. It's interesting that Christians, on average, give 2% of their income, even though the Bible calls for tithes of 10%. It seems like there might be a shortfall in taking care of the poor with the donations even of all Christians in the country.

vomamike said...

Chris - you would rob the soul of humanity if you did away with the Arts - at any level. The body is not the only nurturing that keeps us alive. And even if you did, it would be a drop in the bucket of the savings realized in the federal budget.

I kind of understand your "gaffitti" comment but "rape"? You will have to explain that charge. Also you need to explain the charge that the UN is "sticking" us with wars. I can't imagine what the hell you are talking about there.