Democrats propose taxes to fund veterans' benefits

[Gan]

House Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on millionaires to pay for a big increase in education benefits for veterans of the war in Iraq, lawmakers said Tuesday.

The plan, if accepted by rank-and-file Democrats, would clear the way for a vote Thursday on a long-stalled war funding bill that would pay for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring.
Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats blocked a vote last week over Democratic leaders' attempts to add an additional $51.8 billion over the next decade for veterans education to the $183.8 billion war funding tab. They insisted on finding a way to pay for the new benefit without simply adding to the deficit.

"What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."

The $1 million income level would apply to couples. Individuals would pay the surcharge on income exceeding $500,000.

The idea earned support from House leaders at a late afternoon meeting of top Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

The new GI Bill would essentially guarantee a full-ride scholarship to any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for individuals who serve the military for at least three years.

It's not at all clear that the tax surcharge could survive the Senate and it would likely prompt a veto from President Bush if it were to be presented to him. Still, the development allows House Democrats to keep promises to adhere to pay-as-you-go budget rules that were a top campaign plank in 2006.

The war funding bill still faces a troubled path to enactment and Democrats appear likely to miss their goal of passing the bill by Memorial Day.

Overall, the measure provides $96.6 billion of the $100 billion Bush requested to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September. The $3.4 billion left over would be used to pay for military base and hospital construction, additional food aid and cover shortfalls identified by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Prisons.

Another $66 billion for the Pentagon for the 2009 budget year beginning Oct. 1 would keep troops funded until the next administration can set war policy.

Democrats also plan to add a two-year, $15.6 billion plan to give 13 more weeks of unemployment checks to people whose benefits have run out and 13 weeks beyond that in states with especially high unemployment rates. That provision would not comply with the budget rules requiring deficit neutrality.

Democrats also plan to use the war funding bill to carry legislation to block new Bush administration regulations that would cut federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13 billion over the next five years. The House last month passed that measure by a veto-proof 349-62 margin.

Democrats will try — as they have unsuccessfully in the past — to force the troops home. The bill would require that troops start leaving Iraq within 30 days of its enactment and set a nonbinding goal of withdrawing combat troops by the end of December 2009. It also would require that any troops deployed into a combat zone exceed the Pentagon's peacetime standards for being fully trained and equipped.

However, both of these provisions are expected to fail in the Senate and be stripped from a final bill the House is to approve this spring.

The legislation also includes another $5.8 billion, as requested by Bush, to build flood protection levees around New Orleans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_funding

_________________________________________

I wonder if all the millionaire congressmen and women will be exempt from this millionaire tax? Most likely.

:(

[Deathravin]

So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it

Some would say that those 5,000 "aint gunna miss it" items add up over a lifetime of new leglislations.


OK, so ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, eh?

[CrystalTears]

It doesn't pay to be rich these days.

[Clove]

Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded. - Yogi Bera

[Gan]

If you cant beat em.... TAX EM!

[BigWorm]

Thumbs down? For taxing millionaires to pay for benefits for Iraq War veterans?


The new GI Bill would essentially guarantee a full-ride scholarship to any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for individuals who serve the military for at least three years.
What a waste of 0.5% of a millionaire's income

Oh, that's right. We're just supposed to mandate programs like this and No Child Left Behind, but never actually pay for them.

[CrystalTears]

I'm all for veterans getting more benefits and scholarships to colleges. And I do realize the government has to get the money from somewhere, but if they're so intent on spending money on the war, they can spend it on the soldiers taking care of their war as well, rather than overtaxing millionaires.

[Clove]

Thumbs down? For taxing millionaires to pay for benefits for Iraq War veterans?Why? The millionaires didn't fight the war... why should they have to pay for war veterans?

[Gan]

Thumbs down? For taxing millionaires to pay for benefits for Iraq War veterans?


What a waste of 0.5% of a millionaire's income

Oh, that's right. We're just supposed to mandate programs like this and No Child Left Behind, but never actually pay for them.

Robin Hood would be proud of you.

[Stanley Burrell]

I mean, if it's not coming from the Iraq War funds, that's only like five, or eight bucks. We all have to make sacrifices. In Jellystone:


Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded. - Yogi Bera

"Hey, Boo Boo!" -- Yogi Bear.

[BigWorm]

Robin Hood would be proud of you.

Is Robin Hood code for fiscal conservative? Because they way I understand budgeting is that you want to be able to pay for the things you are buying.

Explain to me why are you against this other than OMG more taxes.

[Gan]

Because you are unfairly taxing someone based on the premise that they have a lot of money. Its a robin hood tax stupid.

How many times have you walked by a homeless person (most likely a vet) and passed by without stopping to buy him some food or give him some cash? Its only money, and surely you're rich enough to afford a 5 spot.

How about funding appropriate vet support programs through appropriate measure that arent in the form of a robin hood tax? Or is that the only creative threshold that we can expect from the Deomcrats as they attempt to become fiscally responsible... instead of cutting out inefficiencies - lets leave them in place and just tax the rich - they got plenty of money anyways...
:banghead:

God Bless America where the more you succeed the more you get screwed. Way to encourage progress.

:clap:

[Deathravin]

Ah, but the more you succeed, the more you can afford to be screwed.

[Keller]

Because you are unfairly taxing someone based on the premise that they have a lot of money. Its a robin hood tax stupid.


God Bless America where the more you succeed the more you get screwed. Way to encourage progress.

:clap:


Unfairly? The war was fought to protect the holders of capital. Who holds the majority of our nations capital? The build-up and sustenance of a strong military specifically benefits the holders of capital. Who holds the majority of our nations capital?

God Bless America, where progress should mean something more than unfettered capital accumulation.

[CrystalTears]

Hippy

[Parkbandit]

Is Robin Hood code for fiscal conservative? Because they way I understand budgeting is that you want to be able to pay for the things you are buying.

Explain to me why are you against this other than OMG more taxes.

You clearly suck at understanding budgeting. "What's one more tax on the millionaires anyway?" Ask that question to Sacramento, CA who has figured out that if you keep taxing the fucking shit out of millionaires.. they just move away and leave you holding the bag.

[Gan]

Unfairly? The war was fought to protect the holders of capital. Who holds the majority of our nations capital? The build-up and sustenance of a strong military specifically benefits the holders of capital. Who holds the majority of our nations capital?

God Bless America, where progress should mean something more than unfettered capital accumulation.

Then everyone should pony up for this, instead of just the rich. Since more than just rich folks live in the US.

[Clove]

Elitest.

[BigWorm]

Oh, so the reason this is a bad policy is that it only affects those in the highest tax bracket? So it would be okayyyyyyy if they raised taxes 0.5% across the board to pay for the education portion of the G.I. Bill?

[Parkbandit]

Congress wastes more money than any other entity known to man. They could easily make budget cuts to make up more than the difference.

But if that didn't work, then yea.. spread the tax increase across the board.

[Gan]

Oh, so the reason this is a bad policy is that it only affects those in the highest tax bracket? So it would be okayyyyyyy if they raised taxes 0.5% across the board to pay for the education portion of the G.I. Bill?

If no other resources could be trimmed/cut/economized from our bloated Congress then yes. If you're going to tax the public, tax everyone - not just one particular demographic.

[Deathravin]

I've always liked this chart (http://www.lizandmarc.com/M/Death_Taxes.jpg)...

I don't see the CIA though.... ah, they're probably hiding.

[BigWorm]

So you're bitching about the progressive tax system again. God forbid we tax people who make $32k a year only 25% while we tax someone who makes millions 35% of their income. What a ridiculous burden. It must hard for those millionaires to make ends meet.

[Daniel]

Yea. That's right. Fuck those lousy, no good, losers that can't pay for their own college education. Who gives a fuck if they risked life and limb for this country??! Am I rite??

[Gan]

So you're bitching about the progressive tax system again. God forbid we tax people who make $32k a year only 25% while we tax someone who makes millions 35% of their income. What a ridiculous burden. It must hard for those millionaires to make ends meet.

No, I'm bitching because a specific demographic is being targeted without any accountability from the other demographics that make up our society.

Progressive tax would mean that people OTHER than the rich were also being taxed. In this case, they are not. Reading comprehension FTL.

Its amazing that you cant understand that.

[Keller]

It must hard for those millionaires to make ends meet.


Millionaires? What about the common folk like me! I'm going from zero tax liability basically my entire life to an anticipated 70k next year! Fuck making money. I'm going to go back to being poor.

[Clove]

Yea. That's right. Fuck those lousy, no good, losers that can't pay for their own college education. Who gives a fuck if they risked life and limb for this country??! Am I rite??If they were smart enough to go to college they wouldn't be in the military.

[Keller]

No, I'm bitching because a specific demographic is being targeted without any accountability from the other demographics that make up our society.

Progressive tax would mean that people OTHER than the rich were also being taxed. In this case, they are not. Reading comprehension FTL.

Its amazing that you cant understand that.

Kinda like you didn't understand that wars and militaries PROTECT CAPITAL and MILLIONAIRES OWN THE MAJORITY OF THE CAPITAL?

[Keller]

If they were smart enough to go to college they wouldn't be in the military.

Why is that in italics?

[Daniel]

If they were smart enough to go to college they wouldn't be in the military.

Maybe they just wanted to blow shit up first.

[Gan]

Kinda like you didn't understand that wars and militaries PROTECT CAPITAL and MILLIONAIRES OWN THE MAJORITY OF THE CAPITAL?

I get it just fine. ;)

And they protect more than just millionaire capital if you ask me.

[Parkbandit]

Yea. That's right. Fuck those lousy, no good, losers that can't pay for their own college education. Who gives a fuck if they risked life and limb for this country??! Am I rite??


You've yet to be 'rite' in anything. If you actually read the posts, no one has said that the vets don't deserve this.. but ONE demographic shouldn't be singled out to pay for it.

[Daniel]

You've yet to be 'rite' in anything. If you actually read the posts, no one has said that the vets don't deserve this.. but ONE demographic shouldn't be singled out to pay for it.

Do we need to go through the whole "Logical progression" exercise again?

[Keller]

I get it just fine. ;)

And they protect more than just millionaire capital if you ask me.

They protect all capital, but again, who owns most of the capital?

[Gan]

So they shouldnt protect capital not owned by millionaires?

[Keller]

So they shouldnt protect capital not owned by millionaires?

:facepalm:

Are you just being difficult?

[Gan]

As I said before, if you're going to levy a tax, levy it for everyone.

[Gan]

:facepalm:

Are you just being difficult?

Are you being close minded?

[Deathravin]

You've yet to be 'rite' in anything. If you actually read the posts, no one has said that the vets don't deserve this.. but ONE demographic shouldn't be singled out to pay for it.

Vets deserve anything we can give them. And an education is a small reward for what they do for this country.

[Parkbandit]

Do we need to go through the whole "Logical progression" exercise again?


Please do. I haven't laughed enough at you today... and it's getting late.

[Daniel]

As I said before, if you're going to levy a tax, levy it for everyone.


Does this apply to houses?

[Gan]

Does this apply to houses?

Yes.

[Parkbandit]

Vets deserve anything we can give them. And an education is a small reward for what they do for this country.


That's fantastic.. but no one is arguing that. I'm not sponsoring you, so buzz off.

[Gan]

LOL

[Keller]

Are you being close minded?

All you had to say is, "Yes, I am being difficult."

I never said other capital isn't being protected. I said it's not "unfair" to tax millionaires because they gain the most from the soldiers and if we're going to use an efficient system that forces payment of positive externalities -- focusing on the owners of capital is a good start.

[Gan]

All you had to say is, "Yes, I am being difficult."

I never said other capital isn't being protected. I said it's not "unfair" to tax millionaires because they gain the most from the soldiers and if we're going to use an efficient system that forces payment of positive externalities -- focusing on the owners of capital is a good start.

Yes it is unfair if we ONLY tax millionaires.

The military protects more than just capital and more than just millionaires live in the US.

Apply the tax fairly, not politically - which is just what this is.

And thats with me agreeing to the tax - which I would rather see Congress focus on eliminating inefficiencies (pork, earmark spending) rather than resort to taxation - which has been the old Democrat standby.

Why the fuck do I have to keep repeating myself?

[Keller]

Yes it is unfair if we ONLY tax millionaires.

The military protects more than just capital and more than just millionaires live in the US.



Unfair because millionaires have to pay it? Or because non-millionaires don't?

What would you prefer the incidence of the tax be? At what point is it "fair"?

[Clove]

Unfair because millionaires have to pay it? Or because non-millionaires don't?

What would you prefer the incidence of the tax be? At what point is it "fair"?At the point where Keller has taxed all the upper class until they're middle class. :P

[CrystalTears]

For hippies it will never be "fair" because millionaires will never feel the "pain" of taxes like the poor.

If you're going to tax, tax everyone. Not sure what's so complicated about that request.

[Keller]

For hippies it will never be "fair" because millionaires will never feel the "pain" of taxes like the poor.

If you're going to tax, tax everyone. Not sure what's so complicated about that request.

Like a head tax? Everyone pays $1000?

[Keller]

At the point where Keller has taxed all the upper class until they're middle class. :P

So we should fund the program by taxing 100% of income above the "middle-class" threshold? That's silly.

[CrystalTears]

Like a head tax? Everyone pays $1000?
That's what she said...

[Keller]

That's what she said...


:rofl:. Dirty girl! <3

[Deathravin]

At this point, I'd probably pay my wife 1000 bucks just to remember what that felt like. She probably still wouldn't do it though.


That's fantastic.. but no one is arguing that. I'm not sponsoring you, so buzz off.

Sorry about that. I've worked 36 out of the past 48 hours and slept for 2 of them. I simply misread that comment.

I know people tell me that sometimes I phrase things where it looks like at first glance I'm saying the opposite. I'm not sure how I got into that habit, but there sure are a lot of people doing that to you as well. I'd venture a guess it may be the same thing. This one, however, was probably my tired eyes.

[Lucas]

It's quite interesting most of you here are hardly millionaires but many of you don't support this. I'm a millionaire (if I liquidated most of my assets) I'll probably be affected by this, but I support it because lord knows I'll be spending the money (1100 $ or so from my calculation) on GS silvers.

But I'm personally curious why relatively poor people here don't support this?

[Keller]

It's quite interesting most of you here are hardly millionaires but many of you don't support this. I'm a millionaire (if I liquidated most of my assets) I'll probably be affected by this, but I support it because lord knows I'll be spending the money (1100 $ or so from my calculation) on GS silvers.

But I'm personally curious why relatively poor people here don't support this?

EPIC FACEPALM.

Get. The. FUCK. Out.

[CrystalTears]

It's quite interesting most of you here are hardly millionaires but many of you don't support this. I'm a millionaire (if I liquidated most of my assets) I'll probably be affected by this, but I support it because lord knows I'll be spending the money (1100 $ or so from my calculation) on GS silvers.

But I'm personally curious why relatively poor people here don't support this?
GS silvers don't work in the real world. Silvers /= dollars.

What makes you think anyone here is poor? Just because we're not millionaires doesn't make us all poor.

[Lucas]

It's quite interesting most of you here are hardly millionaires but many of you don't support this. I'm a millionaire (if I liquidated most of my assets) I'll probably be affected by this, but I support it because lord knows I'll be spending the money (1100 $ or so from my calculation) on GS silvers.

But I'm personally curious why relatively poor people here don't support this?

Indeed, I'm not saying at all that anyone here is poor. But not at the point where you folks are making 2 mil a year. Interesting... social status determined by financial capability could it be that the stigma of being poor may in effect determine fiscal policy. God, if I can just become a Republican, I will cause so much havoc and walk away with so many tax benefits. Generally, poor Republicans have this notion that this party is good for them... dance puppets dance.

[Deathravin]

Being a millionaire after you liquidate 'most' of your assets is a far cry from having a taxable income of >1,000,000 dollars a year.

[Gan]

Unfair because millionaires have to pay it? Or because non-millionaires don't?

What would you prefer the incidence of the tax be? At what point is it "fair"?
We have not made it far enough to discuss the details of what amounts of taxation should be applied. First we have to agree that taxes should apply to everyone first, then we'll debate to what extent.


For hippies it will never be "fair" because millionaires will never feel the "pain" of taxes like the poor.

If you're going to tax, tax everyone. Not sure what's so complicated about that request.
See! Someone else gets it too! (Is this where she's called a cheerleader?)


Like a head tax? Everyone pays $1000?
Does this mean you agree that everyone should pay taxes? A simple yes will suffice - then we can graduate the discussion to what amounts would seem appropriate.

[Gan]

And LOL @ the Lucas contribution.


:lol:

[Keller]

We have not made it far enough to discuss the details of what amounts of taxation should be applied. First we have to agree that taxes should apply to everyone first, then we'll debate to what extent.


Should everyone pay a cigarette tax? Or just people who buy them?

Should we remove the gas tax and raise revenue to build roads through a tax that is applied to everyone?

What about property taxes? Should those who don't own property pay them, too?

[Keller]

Does this mean you agree that everyone should pay taxes? A simple yes will suffice - then we can graduate the discussion to what amounts would seem appropriate.

You're obtuse.

[Gan]

You're obtuse.

Well, thats one way to argue.

[Keller]

Well, thats one way to argue.

I could have said: "Once you recognize that sometimes we tax the receivers of benefits, then we can graduate to a more educated debate."

But, "You're obtuse" got to the point much more quickly.

[Clove]

Who doesn't benefit from National Defense?

[Keller]

Who doesn't benefit from National Defense?

It's not a matter of exclusive benefit. It's a matter of the incidence of the tax being upon the holders of capital.

I've never said that taxing only millionaires was a good or efficient idea. I merely pointed out that claiming it was patently unfair and a "Robin Hood" measure is ignorant pejorative rhetoric.

[Gan]

Should everyone pay a cigarette tax? Or just people who buy them?
Thats a consumption based tax, apples != oranges. We're discussing an income tax - which would apply to only those with income to tax. So yes, in this case everyone who smokes (who has income) will be taxed in order to fund the VA benefits.



Should we remove the gas tax and raise revenue to build roads through a tax that is applied to everyone?
See response above.


What about property taxes? Should those who don't own property pay them, too?
By that logic then we should only tax Veterans since they are the ones needing the benefits.

Now you're just being fecitious.

Its simple, even though you refuse to admit it.

Need:
VA benefits need funding.

Solution proposed:
Additional income tax assessed for those individuals (who already pay taxes mind you) who are considered 'rich'.

Fair solution:
Would be to levy the tax everyone instead of just a select few who were selected for no other reason (consumption or otherwise) except for being wealthy.

Here I go repeating myself again.

Admit it, its not a fair tax thats being propsed. Regardless of what percentage or allocation thats creatively baselining the tax - the tax is still unfairly targeting a demographic for no valid reason except for being wealthy. You cant argue that fact. Bottom line is its a Robin Hood tax.

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... well - you get the picture.

Its just sad that a fair and balanced budget from the Democrat perspective means the application of additional taxes unfairly targeting people whom they think can afford it.

I still wonder how many Congressman/women will 'loophole' out of that requirement IF it ever passes. Since a majority of them are considered wealthy.

[Gan]

I could have said: "Once you recognize that sometimes we tax the receivers of benefits, then we can graduate to a more educated debate."

But, "You're obtuse" got to the point much more quickly.

Yea, that didnt earn you any points though. It sounded more like a cop-out.

*I like how you propose to move to a more educated debate when you cant even admit that the tax is unfair in principal. Your refusal to move past the first point on topic completely negates an lofty attempt at an 'educational' discussion.

I could just as likely say "sometimes we execute prisoners sentenced to death"; and it still shouldnt deter those who argue against the death penalty from discussing the 'fairness' or correctness of it.

Basically what you're saying is that we just like to tax our citizens unfairly - but its ok because thats just what happens.

:yes:

There's not much else you can argue if you cant get past the primary point. But feel free to keep trying.

[Keller]

Admit it, its not a fair tax thats being propsed. Regardless of what percentage or allocation thats creatively baselining the tax - the tax is still unfairly targeting a demographic for no valid reason except for being wealthy. You cant argue that fact. Bottom line is its a Robin Hood tax.

That's actually exactly what I've been arguing.


I've never said that taxing only millionaires was a good or efficient idea. I merely pointed out that claiming it was patently unfair and a "Robin Hood" measure is ignorant pejorative rhetoric.

[Gan]

Sorry if I was too coloquial for you.

The point still stands.

Its an unfair tax. It targets the wealthy. Its a Robin Hood tax. If you want to call it by some fancy name (reminds me of people calling a recession just a market correction) to make you feel better - feel free. That doesnt change the fact that it is what it is.

[Keller]

Sorry if I was too coloquial for you.

The point still stands.

Its an unfair tax. It targets the wealthy. Its a Robin Hood tax. If you want to call it by some fancy name (reminds me of people calling a recession just a market correction) to make you feel better - feel free. That doesnt change the fact that it is what it is.

It targets the wealthy because it provides benefits for the people who protect the interests of the wealthy. At this point, continuing to repeat "no, it's unfair!" over and over is being childish. I'm not saying it's fair -- I'm saying that not recognizing the connection between the incidence of the tax and the purpose of the tax is ignorant. Don't be some windbag that can't think outside of political rhetoric.

[Gan]

It targets the wealthy because it provides benefits for the people who protect the interests of the wealthy. At this point, continuing to repeat "no, it's unfair!" over and over is being childish. I'm not saying it's fair -- I'm saying that not recognizing the connection between the incidence of the tax and the purpose of the tax is ignorant. Don't be some windbag that can't think outside of political rhetoric.

I never said I didnt recognize the connection. I believe you said that.

I'm glad you view the tax proposal as unfair. That gives me hope that other sound minded individuals will feel the same way.

[Keller]

I never said I didnt recognize the connection.

So would you support an increase in the capital gains rate to fund the program?

[Gan]

So would you support an increase in the capital gains rate to fund the program?

No, capital gains taxes stifle investment.

Find another source. Here's a novel idea - try looking for an improvement in efficiency rather than an increase in taxes.

If you stop the leaks, you dont need to keep filling the tub with more water.

[Keller]

No, capital gains taxes stifle investment.


Good point. Taxes stiffle investment, let's just get rid of them all.

[Gan]

Outstanding response.

[Keller]

Outstanding response.

That's the funny part. It was actually a satire of your "outstanding" contribution.

The point that I am driving at, and you're either unaware of or avoiding, is: The military protects captial. The benefit is for the military. Should the owners of capital pay for the benefit?

Just like we force people who drive to pay for the infrastructure, we force people who live in a specific community to fund public education, and we force people who smoke to pay for the public cost of providing them health care at the end of life.

[Warriorbird]

How about we just eliminate the vast inefficiency that is the war? The Republicans are great at making wealth for the country and then throwing it in the air.

[Gan]

That's the funny part. It was actually a satire of your "outstanding" contribution.

The point that I am driving at, and you're either unaware of or avoiding, is: The military protects captial. The benefit is for the military. Should the owners of capital pay for the benefit?
We've already covered this. All capital is not owned by the wealthy. You're proposing a consumption based approach which doesnt apply to this scenario.


Just like we force people who drive to pay for the infrastructure, we force people who live in a specific community to fund public education, and we force people who smoke to pay for the public cost of providing them health care at the end of life.
People already pay taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes. Why add on an extra wealthy tax to fund something that should be, could be, funded by finding efficiencies in other areas? Why apply an unfair tax specifically targeted for political reasons to a specific demographic simply because they can 'afford' it.

Sorry, that doesnt wash. Its a cop out by the Democratic leadership. Its not new - its been proposed before. Its just a shame that in difficult times, our politicians fall back on devices that continue to contradict the message of change they feed the voters during the election season.

[Gan]

How about we just eliminate the vast inefficiency that is the war? The Republicans are great at making wealth for the country and then throwing it in the air.

Find a way to get us out without the whole region going to hell in a handbasket (and bringing the shit right back on our doorstep again) and I'm all ears.

[Keller]

We've already covered this. All capital is not owned by the wealthy. You're proposing a consumption based approach which doesnt apply to this scenario.

Sigh. Would you just answer the question? Let's tax a revenue neutral approach. Assume this benefit program will require 100M dollars. We will reduce the federal income tax revenue by 100M by cutting rates. We will then increase the capital gains rate to make up that same 100M dollars. Would you support that plan? Assume this is the ONLY plan. We can't wave the magic wand to cut federal spending and continue to avoid answering the question.


simply because they can 'afford' it.

Again, it's not because they can afford it.

[Warriorbird]

Sunk cost fallacy, Gan.

[Parkbandit]

Sunk cost fallacy, Gan.

What would your plan be then WB? You take over as President in Jan '09.

[Gan]

Sigh. Would you just answer the question? Let's tax a revenue neutral approach. Assume this benefit program will require 100M dollars. We will reduce the federal income tax revenue by 100M by cutting rates. We will then increase the capital gains rate to make up that same 100M dollars. Would you support that plan? Assume this is the ONLY plan. We can't wave the magic wand to cut federal spending and continue to avoid answering the question.
Benefit cost: -100m
FICA cut: -100m
CG tax: +100m

You still have a deficit of 100m.

No I would not support that plan, first its not realistic, second the math doesnt add up, and third I dont believe the offset of cutting FICA to stimulate investment would make up for the tradeoff of increasing taxes to capital gains. You'll increase consumption by reducing FICA with the hopes it will spur investment in hopes of achieving greater tax returns from increased CG taxes, its a sleight of hand accounting method.

Again, stop the leaks. Cut out inefficiencies in the budget before you look at taxes. Start with earmarks and pork spending.




Again, it's not because they can afford it.
To which I point you to a quote from the OP.


"What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."

[Warriorbird]

Leave. The Iraqi government falls or stands on its own two. It isn't giving us any economic benefit.

If our country is attacked... go after those who attack our country where they dwell rather than coming up with another country to fight an ethereal insurrection in.

Use some realistic steps to make us more secure.

If we're going to give something extra to veterans we can do it out of the war savings.

If we have to go into Pakistan do it with military goals rather than political goals. The American military is an incredible fighting force. "Build democracy." is not what it is supposed to do or is trained to do. Some people just aren't ready for democracy and capitalism. They choose theocracy or autocracy, given the opportunity.

[Keller]

My wife thinks I'm bat-shit crazy because I just spent the last 15 seconds banging my head against the wall next to my desk out of frustration. I guess that means I'm done trying to reason with you. I concede. You're more evasive than I ever predicted.

[Gan]

My wife thinks I'm bat-shit crazy because I just spent the last 15 seconds banging my head against the wall next to my desk out of frustration. I guess that means I'm done trying to reason with you. I concede. You're more evasive than I ever predicted.

I respect your perspective, even if I dont agree with it.

Sorry you take it so personal.

[Keller]

I respect your perspective, even if I dont agree with it.

Sorry you take it so personal.

I respect that you try (which is too much to expect out of some people on the PC), but it's just frustrating that both of us are trying to argue different points and neither of us are willing to discuss the other's argument.

[Back]

House Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on millionaires to pay for a big increase in education benefits for veterans of the war in Iraq, lawmakers said Tuesday.

Makes sense to me since their taxes were cut during this fiasco of a war. Is it not the patriotic thing to do in this time of war? Supporting our troops for their efforts in keeping this the best country in the world? I’m no millionaire but I’d support an increase in taxes to take care of our fighting men despite the fact that I think this war, in Iraq, is utter and complete bullshit. I did not have to go suffer that desert so I am more than willing to help my brothers out even though I would never have sent them there.

[BigWorm]

I guess they should frame it as a 0.5% tax for everybody and then give a 0.5% tax break to the poor and middle class.

[Gan]

Makes sense to me since their taxes were cut during this fiasco of a war. Is it not the patriotic thing to do in this time of war? Supporting our troops for their efforts in keeping this the best country in the world? I’m no millionaire but I’d support an increase in taxes to take care of our fighting men despite the fact that I think this war, in Iraq, is utter and complete bullshit. I did not have to go suffer that desert so I am more than willing to help my brothers out even though I would never have sent them there.

Again. Nobody is saying that the veteran benefits need to be scrapped because the vets dont deserve it.

[Gan]

I guess they should frame it as a 0.5% tax for everybody and then give a 0.5% tax break to the poor and middle class.

You'd make a great left wing politician. Next thing you know you'll announce to your constituency that you'll be increasing your project earmark requests by .5%.

[Parkbandit]

You'd make a great left wing politician. Next thing you know you'll announce to your constituency that you'll be increasing your project earmark requests by .5%.

Bullshit.. a good left wing politician never uses terms like 'earmark'.. they would say "I've increased the aid to our state by .5% by seizing the profits of those evil corporations! WE DESERVE THIS MONEY!"

[Gan]

WE DESERVE EVERYONE ELSE'S MONEY!"

Fixed that.

[BigWorm]

As opposed to right-wing politicians who pander to people like you two who challenge funding for programs with OMG taxes.

[Gan]

As opposed to right-wing politicians who pander to people like you two who challenge funding for programs with OMG taxes.

Yes, when faced with meeting a budget (efficient budget) I always look at where the problems lie first (curtailing wasteful spending), instead of just throwing more money at it.

You spend other people's money well, too bad its not well spent.

[Warriorbird]

Wasteful spending item #1 = the war.

[Gan]

Wasteful spending item #2 = earmarks.

[Daniel]

Hey Gan,

What do you feel about military expenditures in Iraq or on Massive R & D projects?

[Deathravin]

Unless you have a time machine, we're in the war for better or for worse.

Now that we're there, we can't leave. Iraq would just turn into a slightly less stone-age Talaban Afganistan pretty quick. Bush fucked us over, absolutely. But if we leave now, all those soldiers died for no reason. It would be far worse off than when we went in.

[Warriorbird]

Earmarks are massively less than war expenditures.

Deathravin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

[Parkbandit]

Earmarks are massively less than war expenditures.


War expenditures are massively less than terrorist attacks like on 9-11-01.

[Keller]

War expenditures are massively less than terrorist attacks like on 9-11-01.

Good plan. Let's conquer the world and ensure we're never attacked again!

[Warriorbird]

Right... because it's the best strategy in the world to invade an entirely uninvolved country to prevent terrorism.

[Parkbandit]

Right... because it's the best strategy in the world to invade an entirely uninvolved country to prevent terrorism.


I could go over this for the 100th time, but why bother. Continue to spin your wheels and use "The war is a waste" in every single post you make.

We get it. There have been people like you throughout history who have said the same exact thing on every single war.

[Clove]

Right... because it's the best strategy in the world to invade an entirely uninvolved country to prevent terrorism.No kidding, we may as well have invaded Japan!!11!!1!

[Deathravin]

I've never heard a prominant democrat or really even anybody on these boards, or anybody in my own personal life say any negitive thing about the war in Afganistan. Except that we haven't found Bin Laden yet.

[Parkbandit]

I've never heard a prominant democrat or really even anybody on these boards, or anybody in my own personal life say any negitive thing about the war in Afganistan. Except that we haven't found Bin Laden yet.

Do a search, you'll find plenty who consider the war, and any war, a waste. Here's one guy, off the top of my head, that's against it. Kucinich. I imagine he would rather spend that money looking for the aliens that almost kidnapped him.

[Deathravin]

Oh I'm sure they're out there. I can also find people that believe their legs are full of paper clips. But take the % of people against the war in Afganistan and compare that to the % of people against the war in Iraq, and you should find some drastically different numbers.

[Stanley Burrell]

Unless you have a time machine, we're in the war for better or for worse.

Now that we're there, we can't leave. Iraq would just turn into a slightly less stone-age Talaban Afganistan pretty quick. Bush fucked us over, absolutely. But if we leave now, all those soldiers died for no reason. It would be far worse off than when we went in.

The part where Vietcong militiamen attacked us directly after an exchange of U.S. presidential power and subsequent troop withdrawal serves as a blatant reminder to such sentiment.

Also, I have to take a dump.

[Keller]

Also, I have to take a dump.

That reminds me of a joke:

knock, knock . . .

[Stanley Burrell]

That reminds me of a joke:

knock, knock . . .

You forgot the girls and the ice cream cup, bastard.

[Daniel]

Do a search, you'll find plenty who consider the war, and any war, a waste. Here's one guy, off the top of my head, that's against it. Kucinich. I imagine he would rather spend that money looking for the aliens that almost kidnapped him.

So some guy, somewhere, may have said that all war is a waste. Therefore, it's important to write a blank check and have no accountability when waging a war..because people will bitch anyway.

Sound reasoning my friend.

[Daniel]

Unless you have a time machine, we're in the war for better or for worse.

Now that we're there, we can't leave. Iraq would just turn into a slightly less stone-age Talaban Afganistan pretty quick. Bush fucked us over, absolutely. But if we leave now, all those soldiers died for no reason. It would be far worse off than when we went in.

I agree.

However, there are some pretty fucked up ways that the war has been waged, and maintaing that status quo is not desirable for me at all.

If I had to choose between fighting an expensive war with no accountability or plan and just cutting and running, I'd pick the latter.

I'm far more in favor of fixing the problems that are allowing the US to essentially pour money down the drain with little to no gain.

[Parkbandit]

So some guy, somewhere, may have said that all war is a waste. Therefore, it's important to write a blank check and have no accountability when waging a war..because people will bitch anyway.

Sound reasoning my friend.

L2 read... but then again, you never got back with me on your Reading is Fundamental sponsorship. I do have an opening in my charitable contributions this month.. so hurry.

[Keller]

L2 read...

If he is misinterpreting you, please enlighten us on what it is you actually meant.

[Daniel]

If he is misinterpreting you, please enlighten us on what it is you actually meant.

Yea. right. Keep dreaming.

[Parkbandit]

It's sad that the two of you have to share one brain. Perhaps you could let the other idiot borrow your half.. because it's pretty easy to understand.

[Keller]

It's sad that the two of you have to share one brain. Perhaps you could let the other idiot borrow your half.. because it's pretty easy to understand.

But somehow impossible for you to explain . . .

[Daniel]

It's sad that the two of you have to share one brain. Perhaps you could let the other idiot borrow your half.. because it's pretty easy to understand.

This wouldn't be a problem if you weren't such a pathetic little nerd.

It's okay "Your mommy likes you".

[Daniel]

But somehow impossible for you to explain . . .

Let's keep a running tally of how many times he can avoid the question!

[Keller]

Let's keep a running tally of how many times he can avoid the question!

I'm not sure MITs most powerful super-computer could keep track of a number that large.

[Parkbandit]

Let's keep a running tally of how many times he can avoid the question!

:rofl:

You two are like two little school girls.

Obviously, you are having a pretty difficult time understanding a thread.. so here we go. Please try and keep up, the last thing I want to do is lose you two idiots again. I'll try and keep this brief, and only quote the important parts. Too much information or other topics clearly get you two confused and distracted.

Here is the post from WB that obviously started you down Retarded Conclusion Avenue:


Right... because it's the best strategy in the world to invade an entirely uninvolved country to prevent terrorism.

And my response.. I took the liberty of bolding the important part.. to try and get you less confused.


I could go over this for the 100th time, but why bother. Continue to spin your wheels and use "The war is a waste" in every single post you make.

We get it. There have been people like you throughout history who have said the same exact thing on every single war.

See what happened there? WB made an incorrect conclusion.. I chose not to once again explain to him why we were in Iraq.. since we've gone over that about 100 times on this forum. There are people that simply will not agree as to why. WB is clearly one of them.

Then we move do Deathravin's remark:


I've never heard a prominant democrat or really even anybody on these boards, or anybody in my own personal life say any negitive thing about the war in Afganistan. Except that we haven't found Bin Laden yet.

Making it sound like everyone loves the war in Afganistan.. which obviously is incorrect as pointed out by my post that followed:


Do a search, you'll find plenty who consider the war, and any war, a waste. Here's one guy, off the top of my head, that's against it. Kucinich. I imagine he would rather spend that money looking for the aliens that almost kidnapped him.


Then you come to Daniel's stupid remark, I'll even quote that for you:


So some guy, somewhere, may have said that all war is a waste. Therefore, it's important to write a blank check and have no accountability when waging a war..because people will bitch anyway.

Sound reasoning my friend.

No where in this conversation did we talk about blank checks or accountability. No where in this conversation did I say that because 1 person will always complain, that it's ok for the US Government to wage war at will. These conclusions you came up with.. but I think we can all agree they are stupid conclusions.


The only one that requires help with here is you Daniel.. since you clearly missed the conversation prior to your post.

If this didn't clear it up for you.. nothing will.

[Parkbandit]

This wouldn't be a problem if you weren't such a pathetic little nerd.


So says the retard with the white tape on his glasses.

[Daniel]

No where in this conversation did we talk about blank checks or accountability. No where in this conversation did I say that because 1 person will always complain, that it's ok for the US Government to wage war at will. These conclusions you came up with.. but I think we can all agree they are stupid conclusions.



So what was the point you were driving at when you said you could always find someone who was against a war?

[BigWorm]

Damn PB, you did an awesome job of making Keller and Daniel's point. You should totally mark a tally in the "Make a Worthwhile Contribution to Political Thread" column.

This is not in italics for a reason.

[Daniel]

So says the retard with the white tape on his glasses.

OMFG!! you pwed me on a JOKE picture!!! omfg!!

I'd still get more pussy than you in your heyday and not just because it was the 1940's.

[Parkbandit]

So what was the point you were driving at when you said you could always find someone who was against a war?


See? You messed up again chump.

My post was one in response to Deathravin's.. saying he's never heard of anyone ever criticising the Afghanistan war.

I know following a thread can be difficult.. especially with a reading disorder. That's why I plucked out those quotes for you, so you could easily follow them.

And please.. invite Bigworm to your next circle jerk. He feels left out :(

[Parkbandit]

OMFG!! you pwed me on a JOKE picture!!! omfg!!

I'd still get more pussy than you in your heyday and not just because it was the 1940's.


Now now nerdboy.. let's not go lying again. You made a great stride in admitting you fucked up earlier today.. let's not take any more backwards steps.

[BigWorm]

My post was one in response to Deathravin's.. saying he's never heard of anyone ever criticising the Afghanistan war.
:(
Almost the truth...

I've never heard a prominant democrat or really even anybody on these boards, or anybody in my own personal life say any negitive thing about the war in Afganistan. Except that we haven't found Bin Laden yet.
I guess you could consider Kucinich a prominent democrat. However, I would agree with Deathravin that complaints about the Afghan War on these boards are few and far between.

[Daniel]

See? You messed up again chump.

My post was one in response to Deathravin's.. saying he's never heard of anyone ever criticising the Afghanistan war.

:(

So what was the point you were driving at?

It's a simple question.

[Daniel]

Now now nerdboy.. let's not go lying again. You made a great stride in admitting you fucked up earlier today.. let's not take any more backwards steps.

Lol.

If it makes you feel better about yourself. That picture has been my main facebook picture for about a month and it was my profile picture here YEARS ago..but keep thinking that I'm somehow ashamed of it or that it's not a joke.

[Parkbandit]

So what was the point you were driving at?

It's a simple question.


Sweet jesus you are stupid. It IS a simple question.. and I've already given you a simple answer. My point was merely a response to Deathravin's post. Nothing more.

Don't read anything more into it.. you'll only hurt yourself and come up with another stupid conclusion.

[Parkbandit]

Lol.

If it makes you feel better about yourself. That picture has been my main facebook picture for about a month and it was my profile picture here YEARS ago..but keep thinking that I'm somehow ashamed of it or that it's not a joke.


Dude.. you were the only one here bragging about how many more girls you banged than I have. That's quite a feat.. given that you have absolutely no facts to back that claim up.

Then again.. you've never let a thing like facts keep you from being stupid.. have you.

[Daniel]

Sweet jesus you are stupid. It IS a simple question.. and I've already given you a simple answer. My point was merely a response to Deathravin's post. Nothing more.

Don't read anything more into it.. you'll only hurt yourself and come up with another stupid conclusion.

:facepalm:

[Parkbandit]

Almost the truth...

I guess you could consider Kucinich a prominent democrat. However, I would agree with Deathravin that complaints about the Afghan War on these boards are few and far between.


You also forgot about his personal life comment.. I see you didn't bold that one. He was implying that no one is against the war in Afghanistan.. to which I corrected him.

[Daniel]

Dude.. you were the only one here bragging about how many more girls you banged than I have. That's quite a feat.. given that you have absolutely no facts to back that claim up.

Then again.. you've never let a thing like facts keep you from being stupid.. have you.

Oh yea. I was totally not making a colloquial statement intended to imply that I'm better looking than you. No sir, that would just make too much sense. I meant it in the literal sense and I was preparing a chronological history of my sexual endeavors to prove it.

[Parkbandit]

:facepalm:


Indeed. I just wasted about 10 minutes of my life trying to help the mentally handicapped... imagine how I feel.

[Daniel]

Indeed. I just wasted about 10 minutes of my life trying to help the mentally handicapped... imagine how I feel.

Confused? As usual?

[Parkbandit]

Oh yea. I was totally not making a colloquial statement intended to imply that I'm better looking than you. No sir, that would just make too much sense. I meant it in the literal sense and I was preparing a chronological history of my sexual endeavors to prove it.

Your implication would be based upon 1) Your pinion and 2) Your knowledge of my looks. Neither one is factual.

[Daniel]

because that's exactly what I was going for.

[Tsa`ah]

How many homeless veterans are there in the US? How atrocious is healthcare from the VA? How many horror stories have we heard about the living conditions of soldiers and the condition of military medical facilities?

I don't give a rat's ass where the fucking money comes from ... we have a sad history of ignoring our troops and vets. If taxing the rich gets your ass all puckered, drop a fucking tax bracket.

[Back]

How many homeless veterans are there in the US? How atrocious is healthcare from the VA? How many horror stories have we heard about the living conditions of soldiers and the condition of military medical facilities?

I don't give a rat's ass where the fucking money comes from ... we have a sad history of ignoring our troops and vets. If taxing the rich gets your ass all puckered, drop a fucking tax bracket.

:lol:

It amazes me how some people here can be so elitist without even being close to elite. There are Americans fighting over there so we don’t have to fight them here. And you want to complain about a tax that does not even affect you that helps them? JFC man. That is just plain stupid fucked up.

[Parkbandit]

How many homeless veterans are there in the US? How atrocious is healthcare from the VA? How many horror stories have we heard about the living conditions of soldiers and the condition of military medical facilities?

I don't give a rat's ass where the fucking money comes from ... we have a sad history of ignoring our troops and vets. If taxing the rich gets your ass all puckered, drop a fucking tax bracket.

Typical play from the liberal "how to" manual. Make people think that the people against this measure hate veterans...

Seriously, L2read. You are using the same debate tactics as Backlash. There hasn't been a single post saying that the vets don't deserve this or anything else we could give them.. so you could probably leave that rhetoric out of it and focus on the point being made by the original poster.

[Parkbandit]

:lol:

It amazes me how some people here can be so elitist without even being close to elite. There are Americans fighting over there so we don’t have to fight them here. And you want to complain about a tax that does not even affect you that helps them? JFC man. That is just plain stupid fucked up.


Case in point.

[Gan]

Typical play from the liberal "how to" manual. Make people think that the people against this measure hate veterans...

Seriously, L2read. You are using the same debate tactics as Backlash. There hasn't been a single post saying that the vets don't deserve this or anything else we could give them.. so you could probably leave that rhetoric out of it and focus on the point being made by the original poster.

I applaud you for responding. My babblefish translator doesnt seem to be working for trollspeak this morning, ergo I refrained from getting sucked into the latest bullshit addition to this thread.

[Tsa`ah]

Typical play from the liberal "how to" manual. Make people think that the people against this measure hate veterans...

Seriously, L2read. You are using the same debate tactics as Backlash. There hasn't been a single post saying that the vets don't deserve this or anything else we could give them.. so you could probably leave that rhetoric out of it and focus on the point being made by the original poster.

Typical play from the "conservative" spin manual.

I honestly don't give a fuck where the cash comes from so long as it's there. It shouldn't take a single day in congress to address the issues and see that they're funded.

If taxing is a fast acting big bandage until the rest can be hammered out ... I'm all for it. I'm not going to to bitch about it so long as it's getting done.

Are there better ways of doing it? Not with this congress and not with this administration.

Cut funding to every foreign military contract. Divert funds from domestic contracts that have produced nothing .... there is so much fat that could be trimmed that will NEVER be trimmed because of all the interests and personal stakes acting as fingers in the cookie jar.

The point being made by the original poster (Gan) was irrelevant to the core issue. Maybe one of these days you'll stop being a cheerleading fanboy and contribute something more than your usual garbage.

[Daniel]

I just found out today that this is the reason why the supplemental funding bill for the war on terror got torpedoed.

Good job.

[Gan]

I just found out today that this is the reason why the supplemental funding bill for the war on terror got torpedoed.

Good job.

Actually, the GI Bill tax passed. It was the timeline the Dems threw into the funding bill that caused it to get squashed.



The House voted Thursday to endorse a greatly expanded GI education benefit for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan to be financed by a proposed .47 percent surtax on the wealthy.

The action pushes Democrats into new political territory for this Congress: raising income taxes outright on the rich to pay for new spending — and not just to shift the burden and pay for tax breaks for the middle class.
Individuals earning more than $500,000 and couples with joint returns in excess of $1 million would feel the surtax, which would apply only to income above the threshold level. Republican tax writers said small business partnerships and Subchapter S corporations would be hit as well, but Democrats argued that the education investment—costing $52 billion over 10 years—was warranted and worth the political risk on the tax issue.

“You talk about working families? We’re talking about asking people who make over $1 million a year to increase their taxes $500 for these veterans to go to college,” said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.). “This is dedicated funding, and it comes from people in this country who have to most to give to the people who gave the most.”

Thirty-two Republicans joined the majority on the 256-166 vote, a rare showing of bipartisanship in the bitter debate over Iraq policy that had provoked yet more political maneuvering on the floor just minutes earlier.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10395.html

[Gan]

An Op-Ed in the WSJ about how it all went down yesterday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121089337568796953.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks
__________________________________________________ _

Political War Games
May 16, 2008; Page A12

Congress's approval rating is at record lows, but who cares? The Democrats who run the joint have made a calculation that voters will blame everything they loathe about Washington on the Republican President. Which is precisely the kind of political immunity that lets Democrats think they can get away with the tax, spend and evade spectacle of this week's war-funding bill.

Really, this one is a classic. President Bush requested some $178 billion to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan until summer of 2009 – long enough to give the next President breathing room. Democrats know they can't get away with not funding the troops, but to make the vote go down better with their antiwar left they larded it up with war conditions and domestic spending.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GL718_Pelosi_20080327190451.gif
Then yesterday they pulled the stunt of approving the domestic spending but voting down the war money, on a 149-141 vote. Most Republicans withheld their votes to protest the way the bill was handled; it was written out of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office, bypassing Republicans on the Appropriations Committee.

Before the vote, Ms. Pelosi declared that "The legislation provides for a new direction in Iraq that will end this sad chapter in America's history and bring home our brave men and women in uniform" – thus appeasing her antiwar wing. But after the vote, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer quickly said he expects the Senate to restore the war funds.

Yesterday's House votes were even divided into three tranches – war funding, domestic funding and policy provisions. This let Democrats vote against war funding while knowing Republicans will ensure the money will still get to the troops.

On spending, Democrats added $15.6 billion for 13 more weeks of unemployment benefits, though the jobless rate is still only 5%. They also added $120 million as a downpayment on a new GI Bill for veterans, which would create a permanent benefit that would be around long after the Iraq war is over. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it would cost $51.8 billion over 10 years – a vast new entitlement.

What Speaker Pelosi didn't expect was that all of this spending would cause a mutiny in her own caucus. She had to postpone a vote last week after a revolt by "Blue Dog" Democrats who promised to oppose a bill that piled domestic projects on war spending. Their complaint is that the extras violate "paygo," the 2006 Democratic campaign promise to pay for new initiatives dollar-for-dollar with new taxes or budget cuts. Never mind that paygo has been a farce from the get-go, tossed aside when convenient this year and last.

So what to do? These are House Democrats, so the grand Blue Dog-liberal "compromise" was . . . raise taxes. Democrats have now added a 0.5% income tax surcharge on incomes over $500,000 for individuals, $1 million for couples. "They're not going to miss it," Arkansas Democrat Mike Ross told AP, in a sign of his respect for hard-earned private income.

The surcharge won't vanish if the war does. And it would hit millions of small subchapter S businesses that pay individual income rates – and which hire the very people that Democrats claim need more jobless benefits because the economy is so terrible. Democrats know Mr. Bush will veto this tax hike. But they are trying to sell voters on the illusion that Democrats can deliver vast new benefits – and the only folks who'll have to pay for them are those who won't "miss it."

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned earlier this month that if the emergency funds aren't approved by Memorial Day, the Pentagon would have to put military salaries on hold by June 15. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has tried to skewer John McCain for his opposition to the expanded GI Bill. We'd like to hear how Mr. Obama's support for the troops includes leaving military families at risk of a delayed paycheck while their parents and spouses fight overseas.

Taking the opportunity to pander to the antiwar left while stopping short of actually cutting off funds for the war is a cynical maneuver even by Beltway standards. If Democrats lack the courage of their antiwar convictions, their responsibility is to give the troops the funds they need without using them for political games.

[Parkbandit]

I applaud you for responding. My babblefish translator doesnt seem to be working for trollspeak this morning, ergo I refrained from getting sucked into the latest bullshit addition to this thread.


Stop cheerleading and contribute something in this thread please. Stop being such a fucking veteran hater and maybe help them.

{insert 1,589 more words to say the same thing 18 different ways.. but still adding nothing to the actual debate}

This is Tsa'ah aka Googledouchebag.

[Daniel]

Actually, the GI Bill tax passed. It was the timeline the Dems threw into the funding bill that caused it to get squashed.

Cool. I stand corrected. Just what I heard third hand from the staff meeting.