RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/5/2007 2:30:34 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

Hi philosophy…I apologize for butchering your name in my last post.

I repeat Germany did not attack the United States… we could have just fought Japan if we so chose. But it makes no difference when and why only that we did and you would have lost without us fighting along side you… we secured your freedom. Or at least our fathers did. Germany presented no immediate threat to the US on December 11 when they declared war. We could have saved a lot of American lives by just concentrating on Japan… but that was not our choice… don’t give me credit but you should at least those that gave their lives.

Butch

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 41

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/5/2007 6:55:47 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Hi thompsonx

Those 350,000 were just world wars.

They did not include the Korean War…which took my big brother.

I fought in the Vietnam War… not for tin.

Please remember the reasons for all the other wars you listed may or may not be true BUT the soldiers did not go to war for those reasons. They went to war for a way of life that allows people like you to disparage their country and sacrifices.
Butch

Butch:
Please disabuse yourself of the thought that I am disparaging the military or my country. During my time in the military I served in Nicaragua, Columbia, Cuba,Dominican Republic,Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia. I joined the military with the mindset that I was "making the world safe for democracy". What I found out was that I was just making rich people richer and poor people dead.
As I mentioned in my previous post you should read General Butlers book. General Butler spent 40 years in the Marine Corps and won the Medal of Honor twice. He names names and describes who makes the money in a war.
thompson

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 42

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/5/2007 7:06:29 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Hi philosophy…I apologize for butchering your name in my last post.

I repeat Germany did not attack the United States… we could have just fought Japan if we so chose. But it makes no difference when and why only that we did and you would have lost without us fighting along side you… we secured your freedom. Or at least our fathers did. Germany presented no immediate threat to the US on December 11 when they declared war. We could have saved a lot of American lives by just concentrating on Japan… but that was not our choice… don’t give me credit but you should at least those that gave their lives.

Butch

Butch:
Russia did the majority of the fighting and dying in WWII. Russia would have whipped the Germans asses without anyones help. What the allies did was shorten the war.
thompson

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 43

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/5/2007 7:38:00 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

Hi Thompsonx

Russia may have won who knows… but it was the US that supplied Russia with much of its military might…Without our second front and industrial supplies such as their aircraft...made in America… and much of their artillery power and fuel supplies… they would have been easily overrun.
Butch

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 44

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/5/2007 7:38:07 PM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Isn't Hillary one of the one's that refuses to turn away money from lobbyist groups? Isn't there alot of strong ties to various organizations from China tied into things she supports? For some reason all of this does not sit well with me. Now Obama is another story, and depending how things went, I could vote for him. He is not the front runner to win the nomination though. On the republican side, I like Ron Paul mostly, but there are a few extreme views he has that I don't like, regardless he is way behind. Of a Republican that has a slim chance, I like Romney. I do not want to see Gullioni in there as he is part of the Non-Con crowd.

Orion

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Republicans refuse to raise taxes and Democrats refuse to cut government services... it's a vicious cycle.

Clinton had eight balanced budgets,for all eight years.Four of those years,w/ a surplus.

To the CM readers:
Don`t listen to the ney-sayers and amateur economists,apologizing for the failures of the republicans.

Running things w/ integrity can be done,if there is leadership.

Right now w/ bush,we have just the opposite, of leadership.

We can have that again,w/ Hillary.Vote w/ your pocket-book.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Owner59)

Post #: 45

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/5/2007 7:45:08 PM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

There is alot of internal conflicts occuring in the Republican party. What holds alot of true conservatives (non Christian extremist) back, is they want to "win". I believe the republicans should face the fact that they are going to lose a little more power, consolidate within themselves based on their original principles, and force out the Non-Cons.

The current admin, and others that are close to them are not fiscally responsible. Last I looked tax revenues were up, which should mean the deficiit goes down. Most experts that are not on the admin side agree that we need to pull alot of forces out of Iraq, to force the Iraqi politicians to get their shit together. We do not need to leave completely though, as we can assist in other areas that is not peace keeping. Force deployment needs to go way down, but we need to have investment for the long haul.

As Obama pointed out though, even with a rapid reduction, defense budgets will need to go up for a few years as we replace worn out and damaged equipment. As well as make sure we have the equipment necessary if something similar were actually needed in the future. Notice the word needed in the previous sentence.

Orion

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

This is why I have said the term "Neo-Con" is not appropriate to Bush and similar republicans. They should be called Non-Cons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Hell, if Bush didn't have the cash up front, what the hell was he thinking to borrow for it?

"Fiscal Responsibility" anyone?

Emperor Cuomo points out that Congress really walked away from their duty on the AUMF-Iraq, and perhaps the result would have been better considered if they needed to find the money first.

A neo-con,is a "non-con".

The only similarity, is the word "conservative".That`s where the similarities end.They have hi-jacked the term,and the republican party along with it.

By promising the Christian Right the moon,and corporate America,everything else,they have swindled themselves into power.

My hope is that they`ll destroy the republican party`s ability to win elected seats,or influence policy.

Right now,the Democratic party,is both the party of the democrats and of the mainstream republicans.

That`s because the neo-cons are so far to the right, that they`ve fallen off the table,or because they have no integrity.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Owner59)

Post #: 46

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/5/2007 8:18:10 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Hi Thompsonx

Russia may have won who knows… but it was the US that supplied Russia with much of its military might…Without our second front and industrial supplies such as their aircraft...made in America… and much of their artillery power and fuel supplies… they would have been easily overrun.
Butch

Butch:
This was discussed in another thread but just to bring you up to speed. The U.S. supplied Russia with about 10% of her total military supplies. The primary aircraft supplied to the Russians by the U.S. was the P40 aircobra which the Germans looked upon as pretty easy scores. The stormovick* on the other hand was heavily armored and was very hard to bring down.
There was at least one German fighter pilot with over three hundred kills and several dozen with over two hundred kills. By contrast the highest American ace had about 40 kills.
You might want to read a little about the eastern front. There is an interesting book written by four German generals...including Franz Halder who was chief of the German general staff from 1939 to 1942(essentially a debriefing done by the Americans while these generals were POWs after the war) It is called "Fighting in Hell"ISBN 08041-1698-9. It discusses how the German army was totally outclassed by the "subhuman Bolsheviks". Whom they describe as "utterly fearless" and "cunning as wolves"
The Germans lost a quarter of a million men in the battle for Moscow (which they lost) and another 93,000 in the retreat from Moscow. This is about what America lost in both world wars on all fronts.
The Germans never had more than about twenty divisions in western Europe while having more than 150 divisions on the eastern front. Another twenty divisions in Russia would only have meant more body bags for the Germans.
Please do not misunderstand me the allies kept those twenty divisions occupied and did plenty of strategic damage to Germany's war making facilities. The fact remains that the Russians were the ones who did the real bleeding. Total body count for all participants not counting Russia was about 12 million...the Russians lost more than 25 million. No matter how you stack it that is a lot of body bags.
thompson

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 10/5/2007 8:30:47 PM >

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 47

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/8/2007 3:58:52 PM

MistressDollysub

Posts: 11
Joined: 8/7/2007
Status: offline

I think this tax is a great idea. The approximately 1/4 billion we spend in Iraq each day tends to add up to a lot.
During WW!! there was a sense of sacrifice among the American people .Women entered the workforce and toiled in adverse conditions and many items were rationed or widely unavailable.The mood among the populce was one of trepidation and concern.
This is in direct contrast to today .there is a war on and the vast majority of us are able to continue our normal lives without as much as an inconvienience. If more Americans had to endure even the slightest hardship because of this war There would be a lot more opposition to it.

just my thoughts

_____________________________

m i s t r e s s d o l l y . c o m

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 48

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/8/2007 6:31:39 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

For a person that prides himself on the facts you sure get them wrong a lot… Take a few hours and read thru the link below.
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/persian/index.htm

(in reply to MistressDollysub)

Post #: 49

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/8/2007 7:24:11 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

For a person that prides himself on the facts you sure get them wrong a lot… Take a few hours and read thru the link below.
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/persian/index.htm

Butch:
I read this a long time ago when I was in school and it only substantiates what I have already posted.
So what exactly have I gotten wrong?
thompson

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 50

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/8/2007 8:19:19 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

A few examples of your errors

It states that supplies from the US armed and supported 60 of the 120 Russian attack divisions on the Eastern front… I would say that is more than 10 percent.

It also states the US thru the corridor supplied the aviation fuel for the Russian air force.

They also supplied 4,784 assempled aircraft to Russia… not just P40’s but A-20 bombers, DB-7 bombers, B25 bombers, P-39 fighters, P-40 fighters, P-47 fighters, AT-6 trainers... and many more unassembled

The P-39 was the primary aircraft…The P-40 was close behind ... the p-40 is not the aircobra.. the p-39 is.... the p-40 is the warhawk..

I good part of all military trucks and weapons carriers for all divisions were supplied by the US.

Just check out the tables at the end then tell me we made little difference in the Russian victory… after seeing these statistics it is safe to say the Russians could not have won without our help.

Your statistics are also wrong on American deaths on all fronts… but I am not minimizing the Russian dead and their contribution… they just could not have fought Germans with their bare hands… they needed our support to win.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 10/8/2007 8:55:10 PM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 51

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/9/2007 8:01:12 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

A few examples of your errors

It states that supplies from the US armed and supported 60 of the 120 Russian attack divisions on the Eastern front… I would say that is more than 10 percent.
Perhaps you should do a little more research.

It also states the US thru the corridor supplied the aviation fuel for the Russian air force.

They also supplied 4,784 assempled aircraft to Russia… not just P40’s but A-20 bombers, DB-7 bombers, B25 bombers, P-39 fighters, P-40 fighters, P-47 fighters, AT-6 trainers... and many more unassembled
That lend lease existed is not disputed, only the percentage of the total is what we are discussing.

The P-39 was the primary aircraft…The P-40 was close behind ... the p-40 is not the aircobra.. the p-39 is.... the p-40 is the warhawk..
You are absolutely right I mixed up the two names and thank you for correcting my terminology.

I good part of all military trucks and weapons carriers for all divisions were supplied by the US.

Just check out the tables at the end then tell me we made little difference in the Russian victory… after seeing these statistics it is safe to say the Russians could not have won without our help.
Again I can only suggest you do a little more research.

Your statistics are also wrong on American deaths on all fronts...
In your previous posts you had mentioned the figure of 350,000 U.S. deaths in both WW I and WW II as a combined total. I was simply using your figures and showing that they were essentially equal to the German losses at the battle of Moscow and the retreat from that battle.

but I am not minimizing the Russian dead and their contribution… they just could not have fought Germans with their bare hands… they needed our support to win.
They did get our support and it amounted to about 10% of the total war material they used.
You might want to read through this thread. http://www.collarchat.com/m_1195732/mpage_1/key_109/tm.htm

Butch

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 52

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/9/2007 12:50:46 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

All I can say thompsonx is we must not be reading the same document... all my facts above came from the document I linked to...deny them as you like... I choose to believe the "CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY WASHINGTON, D. C.," over your none documented denials.

You always claim to have documented knowledge and say others don’t know what they are talking about. However when confronted with hard evidence contrary to your beliefs you say things like…do a little more research… or it is your site against mine… yet you never provide hard rebuttal evidence.

The information above is hard … not a documentary by some unknown war historian… it is hard evidence listing amounts…dates…percentages…and particulars. It is irrefutable and comprehensive.

Of course it is just opinion as to whether Russia could not of prevailed without our help and only important as an intellectual discussion. Don’t be afraid to be wrong or mistaken...it happens to us all…just stop criticizing others for not presenting proof of their stance in a discussion… then provide none yourself.

You may have proof and it may be reliable and substantial… just don’t be lazy...present it or be still…don’t waste my time.

< Message edited by kdsub -- 10/9/2007 1:29:59 PM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 53

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/9/2007 1:22:36 PM

defiantbadgirl

Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

For those not knowing this is from the Republican playbook:

1. Do some idiot shit (war, pork spending, etc) that costs a lot and lines the pocket of your friends
2. Lose elections
3. Make those "tax and spend" Democrats have to pay for it once they are in office
4. The newly elected Democrats can't achieve much else because they have no financial mobility
5. Republicans get reelected because Democrats can't do anything and raise taxes
6. Repeat.

Cha-ching!

Obviously this congress wants the right people to get the bill. This kind of move points up how the Republicans are spending money they haven't got and will never have.

This war specifically benefits particular industries - it is corporate cronyism of the worst kind.

Why not make the political point? I would.

Excellent post. I agree 100% and I'm suprised more people haven't seen it.

_____________________________

Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week.

Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Post #: 54

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/9/2007 1:34:39 PM

defiantbadgirl

Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

WASHINGTON - Three senior House Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war on to future generations.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21104662

I'm saddened that the democrats would do this. Why not propose an income tax surcharge for something that would benefit the citizens of this country? I say have a tax surcharge for universal healthcare instead, use our own oil, and make outsourcing illegal. That would improve our economy, improve the health of US citizens, and strengthen the US. We are not strong as long as we are relying on other countries.

_____________________________

Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week.

Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 55

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/9/2007 1:48:32 PM

defiantbadgirl

Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I thought the Dems were running on getting us OUT of Iraq?
Now they're talking about getting us "gradually" out?
Now Sen. Clinton is talking about 2013?
This is shades of Vietnam all over again.
I support the Troops 100% but I don't support building hospitals, roads, airports, and bridges in foreign countries.
That's called "Nation Building."
Rebuilding Iraq after 30 years of neglect by Saddam wasn't part of the deal.
And now there's a congressional report out about massive corruption in Iraq and again billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars are being stolen.
There are just too many companies and people making too much money from this war. And again behind the scenes are the lobbyists on K street.
And meanwhile our infrastructure in this country is collapsing.
Here's a better idea than a "sur-tax" just fucking leave. In one week.
It's nothing but a shooting gallery over there for our Troops.
Bush was right, "Mission accomplished." We got Saddam so get out!
I really couldn't care less what happens in that country after we leave.
What a novel idea by the Dems, more "tax and spend."
That's all they know.
Tax The People's money and then spend it.
And anyone with any smarts would get the Troops out of Iraq and put them on the Mexican border where they're actually *needed.*

I agree that the Democrats need to learn to keep their story straight. As far as the Mexican border is concerned, both legal and illegal immigration needs to stop until outsourcing is stopped. Mexicans have been migrating to this country for years and before outsourcing, it wasn't a problem. There were enough good jobs for immigrants as well as Americans. The problem comes when outsourcing and immigration occurs at the same time. That along with an expensive and senseless war is what's killing our economy. Terrorism can't be stopped. Terrorists are in every country in the world including the US. Terrorism will never be stopped because it's too widespread.

< Message edited by defiantbadgirl -- 10/9/2007 1:57:01 PM >

_____________________________

Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week.

Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 56

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/9/2007 2:08:08 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

Mexicans have been migrating to this country for years and before outsourcing, it wasn't a problem.

And it will cease to be a problem 5 seconds after the election is over.

(in reply to defiantbadgirl)

Post #: 57

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/9/2007 8:43:43 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

All I can say thompsonx is we must not be reading the same document... all my facts above came from the document I linked to...deny them as you like... I choose to believe the "CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY WASHINGTON, D. C.," over your none documented denials.

You always claim to have documented knowledge and say others don’t know what they are talking about. However when confronted with hard evidence contrary to your beliefs you say things like…do a little more research… or it is your site against mine… yet you never provide hard rebuttal evidence.

The information above is hard … not a documentary by some unknown war historian… it is hard evidence listing amounts…dates…percentages…and particulars. It is irrefutable and comprehensive.

Of course it is just opinion as to whether Russia could not of prevailed without our help and only important as an intellectual discussion. Don’t be afraid to be wrong or mistaken...it happens to us all…just stop criticizing others for not presenting proof of their stance in a discussion… then provide none yourself.

You may have proof and it may be reliable and substantial… just don’t be lazy...present it or be still…don’t waste my time.

Butch:
I never said that we did not give the Russians lend lease...I just said it only amounted to about 10% of what they used.
Maybe you like "Wiki" and maybe you do not. I like to use it as a jumping off point for further research. If you read this you might be inspired to look into Russian industrial production during the war years and compare it to the amount of lend lease that was supplied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927%E2%80%931953)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZOkiEu1hTqEC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=total+of+american+lend+lease+to+russia+in+world+war+2&source=web&ots=iwLa6-APV8&sig=lfbb5GajdRHjsoCMDEBB5d-D8Bg#PPP1,M1
The second link is to a book that you can read on line. It discusses Americas "real contribution" to Russia's success in WW II.
thompson

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 58

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/9/2007 8:50:03 PM

chellekitty

Posts: 3923
Joined: 3/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

No, it'd never pass into law, but it perhaps makes a good point; how do we pay for it?

hehe...legalize all drugs, tax the drugs...use the drug tax money to pay for the war...eases the stress on the prison system, the health system and provides money for the war...

ahhh now i can work on providing peace in the middle east...

_____________________________

One thing I know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve. ~Albert Schweitzer

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 59

RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war - 10/9/2007 8:51:06 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to chellekitty)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dems propose tax to fund Iraq war

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.105