WASHINGTON — A top Democratic congressman, saying Democrats "have had it with being maneuvered and jerked around" on the war in Iraq, offered a new approach Tuesday to change the course of funding for the ongoing war: A war tax.
Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he will not allow a bill to come for debate to provide emergency supplemental funds for the war and suggested Americans should be compelled to pay for it through a "surtax."
"The president isn't going to get a supplemental this year. I am not going to report a supplemental out" if it simply is a request for funds and not a change in direction for troops in Iraq," Obey said.
Obey suggested he is flexible as to what the change in policy proposes "so long as it represents real change and not camouflage."
Obey said the annual cost for the war — $145 billion — could be paid by a tax that would range from 2 percent for low and middle income folks to 12-15 percent for higher income households.
"This war is draining the treasury dry. ... There is a huge opportunity cost that is being paid by the same younger generation that is going to be asked to pay the bill because the president is paying for this war on the cuff," Obey said. "If you don't like the cost, then shut down the war."
Obey said he has no expectation that the majority leadership in the House would embrace a tax, but wants to try to force the president's hand for this "misbegotten" war. He said that the tax would address the cost of the Iraq war, which he described as "not an intelligent use of resources," and is not related to operations in Afghanistan.
A senior Senate Democratic leadership aide told FOX News that both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are considering their next moves on Iraq, especially as it relates to the emergency war spending bill
Obey's proposal received the expected response from Republicans, with one senior Senate GOP aide whose boss deals directly with tax policy ridiculing the surtax.
"What next? A tax on air?" the aide told FOX News. "Democrats are talking about the need to raise taxes to pay for the war while they're also trying to bully the Republicans and the president into $23 billion more in (2008 fiscal year) domestic spending — $23 billion that will balloon into $250 billion over 10 years. The problem isn't too few taxpayer dollars, its too much government spending."
Obey's remarks preceded debate on legislation that would require Bush to submit a plan for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The bill would require the administration to report to Congress on the status of redeployment plans in 60 days. Follow up reports would be required every 90 days thereafter.
Initially, Democratic leaders considered the bill too mild and instead focused on tougher measures that ordered troops home this fall. But those measures didn't pick up enough Republican support.
The latest bill doesn't set any timetable for a withdrawal and Republican leaders have said they will not oppose it.
Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vote was 92-3.
The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.
Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding. But Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the defense subcommittee of the Senate appropriations panel, announced Tuesday that he will oppose any amendment to defense spending that "could jeopardize quick enactment of this bill."
Inouye is in charge of shepherding the bill to passage, and is sending a clear warning to Democrats like Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who want to dry up funding to force limiting the mission in Iraq. Feingold released a statement late Monday announcing his intention to offer an amendment to the defense spending bill that would do just that. Feingold said Iraq is the most important issue facing the U.S. and the Senate must address it without half-measures or compromises that do nothing to end the the Iraq war.
While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.
"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.
The House bill, sponsored by Democrats John Tanner of Tennessee and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, was initially cast aside as too mild by Democratic leaders focused on tougher proposals ordering troops home this fall.
But after Democrats were unable to peel off Republican support, the Iraq debate stalled and some four dozen rank-and-file Democrats demanded a vote on the Abercrombie-Tanner bill.
"This will be the first time since the war in Iraq began that we are working together as a Congress instead of one party or another to be a constructive voice in the civilian management of operations in Iraq," Tanner said in a statement e-mailed to the Associated Press.
In February, Bush requested more than $140 billion for the war, and is expected to ask for another $42 billion to cover costs in the 2008 budget year, which began Monday. The Senate's defense policy bill authorizes Bush's initial request, plus an additional $23 billion for the purchase of bomb-resistant vehicles.
In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.
The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill in May by a 397-27 vote. That $646 billion measure would trim hundreds of millions of dollars from some weapons modernization programs and use the money instead to aid troops in combat.
The House bill has drawn a veto threat from the White House because of provisions insisting the military rely heavily on American-made products and proposed changes to the Pentagon's personnel policies. The Senate version, which would have to be reconciled with the House bill, also faces a veto possibility because it includes hate-crimes legislation by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
LatinLover
:stongue: :stongue:
If the Democrats continue with this nonsense, NO WAY THEY ARE GOING TO WIN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS.
I mean the new house of rep and senate, dominated by the dems, has not done anything. All they continue to do is legislate defeat and creating obstacles to the president of the united states. This is obsurb! Instead of our elected officials tackling domestic problems that our country faces, our own internal war, they are out there with their silliness trying to prove a political point. Why dont we have a congress like we did during WWII? A congress united to ensure victory
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
"This war is draining the treasury dry. ... There is a huge opportunity cost that is being paid by the same younger generation that is going to be asked to pay the bill because the president is paying for this war on the cuff," Obey said. "If you don't like the cost, then shut down the war."
Obey said he has no expectation that the majority leadership in the House would embrace a tax, but wants to try to force the president's hand for this "misbegotten" war. He said that the tax would address the cost of the Iraq war, which he described as "not an intelligent use of resources," and is not related to operations in Afghanistan.
Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vote was 92-3.
The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.
In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.
The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill in May by a 397-27 vote. That $646 billion measure would trim hundreds of millions of dollars from some weapons modernization programs and use the money instead to aid troops in combat.
LatinLover, I don't know what you're talking about. I think this is a fantastic proposal - if you want to fight wars for illegitimate reasons, you should be willing to carry the burden, much as we did during WWII by the way. More than a billion dollars is being spent on the Iraq War each day... if you saved half of that money, you would incur budget surpluses, something Republicans are supposed to prefer over the horrid deficits that are the norm under Bush. And the rest of that money could go toward improving the quality of our military, healthcare system, education system, or infrastructure. I was in Minneapolis the day the bridge came down, and for the federal government to claim they don't have the 8 million dollars it would require to have ensured that bridge was safe, well I call bull.
Yes, raising taxes is unpopular. But so is your war. Obey is right for pointing out that there is a tremendous opportunity cost for continuing involvement in Iraq.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
This is obsurb! Instead of our elected officials tackling domestic problems that our country faces, our own internal war,
I don't know what "internal war" you are referring to, but perhaps if they had the billions of dollars being funneled into Iraq and Blackwater's coffers, they would be able to do a bit more about it. You're tying their hands and then calling them unproductive.
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
LatinLover, I don't know what you're talking about. I think this is a fantastic proposal - if you want to fight wars for illegitimate reasons, you should be willing to carry the burden, much as we did during WWII by the way. More than a billion dollars is being spent on the Iraq War each day... if you saved half of that money, you would incur budget surpluses, something Republicans are supposed to prefer over the horrid deficits that are the norm under Bush. And the rest of that money could go toward improving the quality of our military, healthcare system, education system, or infrastructure. I was in Minneapolis the day the bridge came down, and for the federal government to claim they don't have the 8 million dollars it would require to have ensured that bridge was safe, well I call bull.
Yes, raising taxes is unpopular. But so is your war. Obey is right for pointing out that there is a tremendous opportunity cost for continuing involvement in Iraq.
I just dont get the far left....:rolleyes: And how dare you call it my war? :rolleyes: Im not at war... president Bush is not at war... its the United States that are at war. You see, the far left keeps disrespecting our brave soldiers. Do our soldiers feel they are fighting a "republican" or a "bush" war? NO! They are fighting an American war! Quit your silliness and get your head straighten out!
I am sick and tired of all these bs by the far left, which is clearly seen in this board, quit seeing things through a liberal point of view and see it from an American point of view. Think whats best for this country. I just laugh at those individuals that call me a bush supporter and so on... I mean with all due respect to all those people, but that is the reason why I dont take you seriously.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
I just dont get the far left....:rolleyes: And how dare you call it my war? :rolleyes: Im not at war... president Bush is not at war... its the United States that are at war. You see, the far left keeps disrespecting our brave soldiers. Do our soldiers feel they are fighting a "republican" or a "bush" war? NO! They are fighting an American war! Quit your silliness and get your head straighten out!
I am sick and tired of all these bs by the far left, which is clearly seen in this board, quit seeing things through a liberal point of view and see it from an American point of view. Think whats best for this country. I just laugh at those individuals that call me a bush supporter and so on... I mean with all due respect to all those people, but that is the reason why I dont take you seriously.
Congratulations! You've completely mislabled me.
You know how I support the troops? By keeping them alive, so that they can be with their families until we actually need them to protect American security. How do you support your troops? By supporting their being sent off to fight and die for no bloody purpose. Don't you dare insinuate that I don't support our men and women in the military when it is YOU who is supportive of the mismanaged, ill-advised mess that is ending their lives.
Krypton
So opposition to an illegal war makes us "far left"? Essentially calling communists does nothing for your argument...
Lebezniatnikov
Your war.
LatinLover
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Congratulations! You've completely mislabled me.
You know how I support the troops? By keeping them alive, so that they can be with their families until we actually need them to protect American security. How do you support your troops? By supporting their being sent off to fight and die for no bloody purpose. Don't you dare insinuate that I don't support our men and women in the military when it is YOU who is supportive of the mismanaged, ill-advised mess that is ending their lives.
Quit lying you dont support them! You denounce their bravery and their work by promoting failure! So dont come up to me with this that you support them by wanting them here in our country.... you know whats the duty of a soldier? whenever they are called upon to serve this nation they go and do it. I have good friends of mines in the military, when they come back it fills me with joy when they talk about the battles and how happy they are doing their work every time, they are so optimistic and they believe in the cause for what they are fighting for. They believe in the leadership of their military. Do I want them back with their families and friends? Ofcourse I do! but as they tell me and everyone they must first obly with their duty that they were called upon and when they are victorious they can come home as winners and with all these stories to tell to us and how their efforts werent in vain.
How do i support them? Making sure that they get all the equipment they need for their missions, and by reminding all these politicians their commitment they have to them. Presenting or legislating withdrawal dosent mean anything! Does our soldiers and military personnel want to retreat? Hell no! So you better stop living in this political world and leave our military to fight this war. Is sad that our congress is no united in these type of times. They are not doing any good to our brave men and women, they are going against their will with this retreat failed policy.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
Quit lying you dont support them! You denounce their bravery and their work by promoting failure!
Promoting failure? Denouncing bravery? I defy you to point out a single instance where this can be reasonably construed from what I have written or said ever in my life. Even Rumsfeld and Gates have admitted that this war was perhaps best not fought. Which begs the question: why the hell are our troops, our friends, brothers, sisters, and children, fighting in the first place? Yes, it is their duty to fight when called upon. And they have done that valiantly. But you are completely missing the point. They never should have been called upon in the first place. THAT is the issue at debate here, not whether or not I think the individual soldiers are good people. To misconstrue that argument like you do is to live in fantasyland.
quote:
you know whats the duty of a soldier? whenever they are called upon to serve this nation they go and do it.
Agreed. Which is why I'm sure you'll agree that it's so tragic that we're compromising their trust by sending them to fight an illegitimate war. They swear to serve and protect this country - not serve a political purpose for a White House that refuses to admit that it made a mistake.
quote:
I have good friends of mines in the military, when they come back it fills me with joy when they talk about the battles and how happy they are doing their work every time, they are so optimistic and they believe in the cause for what they are fighting for. They believe in the leadership of their military. Do I want them back with their families and friends? Ofcourse I do! but as they tell me and everyone they must first obly with their duty that they were called upon and when they are victorious they can come home as winners and with all these stories to tell to us and how their efforts werent in vain.
This war, unfortunately, is out of their hands at this point. They can fight to the best of their ability, but when the war is being fought for ill-conceived reasons, what do we stand to gain? The fact of the matter is nothing. I say we should bring them home before they end up dead, instead of leave them hanging in a desert with no possible positive outcome.
quote:
So you better stop living in this political world and leave our military to fight this war. Is sad that our congress is no united in these type of times. They are not doing any good to our brave men and women, they are going against their will with this retreat failed policy.
This logic makes no sense! So politicians can decide when our military should go to battle, and then they should just leave them there to fight forever and ever and ever? Who decides victory or defeat? We haven't won and we haven't lost anything. But the longer we stay in Iraq, fighting for a purpose that doesn't make any sense, the more we risk losing in every sense of the word.
MisterOpus1
Latin,
Before I post. Two things:
1. Why did you stop posting in the previous threads on Iran and such? You had some direct questions posed to you but yet you seemingly ran away without answering (again). Why's that?
2. Are you willing to actually read everything below and answer directly, or will you continue with your well-known pattern of "I didn't read the whole post" ignorance?
On to your post:
quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
I just dont get the far left....:rolleyes:
Strange how easily we get you.
quote:
And how dare you call it my war? :rolleyes: Im not at war...
Why aren't you? You ARE of age, are you not? Why aren't you signing up for the cause you so fervently support? Do you really think the best way to support your president and his war cause is to sit here and make posts about it?
Pick up a gun and start fighting. You aren't that Yellow, are you?
quote:
president Bush is not at war... its the United States that are at war.
Which is why we've paid the bill in full on it, among other things.
Oh wait......
quote:
You see, the far left keeps disrespecting our brave soldiers.
Indeed, such an exclusive club that only the "far left" is in. Well, except this:
But hey, it's alright. We're all fully aware of your selective memory......
quote:
Do our soldiers feel they are fighting a "republican" or a "bush" war? NO! They are fighting an American war!
And what do the Americans who are supporting them with equipment, funding, family, and moral support feel who's war this is and what we should do about it?:
quote:
Most Americans continue to want troops to start coming home from Iraq, and most say the plan President Bush announced last week for troop reductions doesn't go far enough, according to a CBS News poll released Monday. . . .
Sixty-eight percent of Americans say that U.S. troop levels in Iraq should either be reduced or that all troops should be removed - similar numbers to those before Mr. Bush's speech.
and what about continuing to fund this fiasco of a war?:
quote:
Most Americans oppose fully funding U.S. President George W. Bush's $190 billion request to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Only about 25 percent of Americans support the administration's $190 billion war funding request; 70 percent want the proposed allocation reduced, the Post said.
But what about the military members themselves? Huh, funny I should ask. Seems a bit strange how donations have shifted from 23% in 2002 to 40% today towards DEMOCRATS by military donors, and the top donation for Republican candidates just so happens to be an ANTI-WAR candidate, Ron Paul:
I am sick and tired of all these bs by the far left, which is clearly seen in this board, quit seeing things through a liberal point of view and see it from an American point of view.
And I'm sick and tired of your continual incessant bull as if you actually speak for the majority of Americans when time and again YOUR point of view is clearly in the minority. Name me ONE ING ISSUE on this Iraq war that the majority of Americans support YOUR view of things. Do they support continual funding until "victory"? Do they support troops staying until "victory"? Do they support this president in his efforts in Iraq? Give me some ing evidence NOW. No more bull from you. Cite one issue on Iraq that the MAJORITY American public doesn't side with the "far left" and instead supports your "far right" bull fringe views with Iraq, and we'll be happy as ing clams.
Otherwise you are once again wasting everyone's ing time posting incessantly YOUR views and claiming to be everyone else's. Enough with the bull already, please.
quote:
Think whats best for this country.
Are you belittling what the majority of Americans think and want, which just so happens to be the same sentiment as the "far left" with Iraq?
And if you're wanting us to think about what's best - don't you think it's best for you to show true support for this cause you so fervently support by enlisting now? If not, why not?
quote:
I just laugh at those individuals that call me a bush supporter and so on... I mean with all due respect to all those people, but that is the reason why I dont take you seriously.
With the exception of the most recent Afghanistan post you've just thrown up, name one thread you've created that is not in total alignment with a Bush policy. Just one will do.
Enough with your bull, Latin. Answer direct questions and points posed to you, support your arguments or else quit wasting our ing time.
