October 2, 2007 • 7:04 pm
The Democrats tried to find a way to fund the Iraq war, by creating a tax surcharge. Top Democrats, and Republicans as a whole blasted the idea. The idea reported by MarketWatch actually seemed simple and responsible:
The proposed legislation, offered by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and Democratic Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2% to their federal taxes, according to news reports, while higher-income taxpayers would see a surcharge of 12% to 15%.
Obey said the measure would help draw a contrast between President Bush’s threat to veto several Democratic spending measures because they exceed his fiscal 2008 budget request by around $22 billion.
“Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am … opposed to a war surtax,” said Pelosi, D-Calif., according to the Associated Press.
Someone needs to pay for this war. Obviously the oil money we where promised would finance a war that would go no higher than $50 billion, has gone somewhere else. Probably in Bushes pocket. But my idea for war financing is even better, how about congressional districts that support the Iraq war – as determined by their representatives votes – would have to the tax burden.
This puts the Republicans where their mouth is. First it funds this “All so important war,” which everyday is looking more like a Bush/Vigilante setup (Bush gets to put oil money in his pocket, hateful conservatives gets to watch Blackwater shooting brown people). And besides money, Al-Qaida has warned that anyone who pays taxes, is as guilty as Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan. So why not have the people who support this war be the sole bearers of the blood and money?
Filed under: War & Peace
America might be becoming a nation of war hawks. In 2004 Bush said Kerry had no plan for the War on Terror. So now each candidate is coming up with a pubilcily shared plan. In fact it seems a clone of Bush’s, violence for violence.
Now Tom Tancredo, says we should attack Muslim holy sites, if terrorists first attack us. Considering the remarks he’s made about immigration, it’s no surprise that region by region he’s declaring war on the world. But Obama’s statement was the really surprising one, considering he promotes himself as a reconciler. And Hilary’s claim that Obama is to soft to become president was also a veiled threat of more violence.
I hope this esacalation in tought talk, is just talk and nothing more. We can not win the War on Terror by violently attacking perceived threats. Instead we need to focus on soultions to the root of the problem. Kicking our dependence on oil. Giving finacial, educational, and health aid to at risk middle eastern and African nations. We need a president who is compassionate but decisive, we do not need a(nother) king.
Filed under: '08 Election, American Politics, War & Peace
When I hear the first fireworks explode on the Fourth I jump slightly. Then I remember it’s the fourth. Then I think about Iraq, and how an Iraqi wouldn’t jump at the sound of a small explosion, much less a larger one.
So when will the Iraqis get some of the freedoms that Americans enjoy? Like not having to worry about getting machined gunned down when troops bust into your home, or being blow up when at the grocery store. While us Americans remember the countries 230th birthday, I hope we remember those same people that want freedom from the bigger, oppressive force. Instead of more bloodshed why not give the Iraqis the freedom they want by letting them determine the future of their country, whoever they decided to work it out, by force, or by peaceful political means.
Filed under: American Politics, History, War & Peace