Printable View
Dave,
Should probably rename this thread "float your dumb question here Tony"
SWJ,
Could some one tell me why Congress is proposing a tax for OEF..oops I mean "Overseas Contingency Operations" ;);) I would just a soon buy a war bond. I dont mean a "Patriot Bond" or any other renamed E series bond that can also go to fund looney toon government programs, a bond that I know goes directly to fund OCO. It seems to me before taxing the reluctant, shouldn't they ask for donations?
Thanks
Hoh
War bonds are meant to be paid back, right?
They're simply issued IOUs with interest rates - debt securities.
The U.S. already issues many of those (and many end up in China).
So feel free to buy 'em.
The binding of income to purpose is an illusion anyway. Every additional $ bound purpose-bound income replaces a $ from the general budget. There's usually no increase in expenses by purpose-bound income, especially not in a situation as the AFG war as the source of income does not change the interests pursued with that war or its costs.
Agreed. Debt is debt. You could gussy it up as a "war bond", but on the books it's not any different. Plus the Chinese and the Saudis would probably (and embarassingly) scarf up most of these anyway --- the appetite out there for U.S. gov debt remains massive.
The fiscally responsible thing to do would be to actually budget and fund spending, but we're not going to do that.
Thanks
I never looked outside the immediate purchase and the make me feel better factor. It didnt occur to me that other countries would buy them up and increase our debt. Oh well back to brainstorming, have a great Thanksgiving.
It is supposed to be a tax on the rich, like the luxury tax in monopoly:) which is a good idea,the rich have the most to gain so they should pay the most. Now will this really happen.......who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Hoh
Doubtful. Too many rich Hollywood types would complain. And that might hurt campaign contributions and all the free publicity candidates get from their celeb fans.....:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
Rich Hollywood types generally don't mind paying higher taxes. More importantly, they have no political swing and no organized lobby.
These guys, on the other hand ...
Here what Billy Jack would do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqBynKxAiiI
Although it's probably politically impossible, I support the idea of a general "war" tax to spread the burden.
As a matter of fairness, I agree wholeheartedly.
As a matter of COIN best practices, I don't think it's a good idea as far as maintaining domestic support for the war effort. Public support is already teetering. Adding a broad-based tax specifically for the war in the midst of the worst recession in decades sounds like an excellent way to crater it.
Or perhaps I'm underestimating the American public again?
I'm just talking general principle as far as a tax goes, but I think a low tolerance of long-term warfare is a feature of our democracy which is good thing IMO.
And why would that necessarily be a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila
Last night Fox news launched a poll to canvass opinion regarding taxing the rich to fund the war...perhaps they could tax the major stuidos in return for exclusive film rights later?:D
I am gonna do a write in for Billy Jack in 2012!Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
Anthony now your talking!
Where is Colonel Taylor? Read how an Army Colonel saved the USA by telling Lincoln he had the authority to ask congress to just print the money and pay for the War tax free and get rid of all those Tali-Banksters that wanted charge over 30% on War loans. America needs to do this and do it quickly.
http://www.heritech.com/pridger/lincoln/lin-ken.htm