English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Ok, I am in a debate class and I am affirmative on (It was made up in class, I do policy but I had to do LD with a friend and we came up with this.)
RESOLVED: People who make $150,000 or more a year, should be flat taxed $5,000 to help fund the military. NOTE: I am going to give a lot of the excess money to charities to help me. not all is going to the military.
NOTE 2: Do not preach about we do not need the military or whatever. only post if you are going to answer the question, please.

2006-12-08 02:24:10 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

9 answers

Aricle I of the (assuming US) United States Constitution.

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;..."

The idea of funding a military was so important that our founding fathers specificially laid it out in our founding document. You will not find that wording for most of the expeditures that the US gov't makes today.

At the time of the Constitution's signing the people of the United States were very wary of a standing army and the wording reflects that. Today warfare is much more techincal. In those days troops needed to know how to manuver and shoot. Those tasks could be taught in a matter of weeks. Today's soldiers need far more time to train up. Look at how long it takes to train a pilot. Even an infantryman needs extensive training to be able to effectively operate a range of weapon systems in battle. Also, leaders (sergeants and officers) need years of training to be able to effectively lead those soldiers.

Also, the lethality of weapons has greatly increased since WWII. At the opening of WWII the worst case was an invasion by a foreign force and that would have been difficult for either the Germans or the Japanese. By the close of the war we had the atom bomb. Since then the means to deliver such a weapon have progressed such that we must maintain an active deterent. If we had no standing military almost any country with a missle could destroy most of the major cities in the United States without any fear of the same being done to them. During the Cold War that was called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It may have seemed like madness but it worked. The Soviets knew better than to launch a nuke at the US or one of the NATO countries. Had that deterent not been in place the Soviets would have almost certainly taken more of Europe.

It would be great if everyone could live in peace. But century upon century of history showes that is not possible. Having a strong military, a well funded military, is one way to insure that we have peace at home.

2006-12-08 02:48:39 · answer #1 · answered by k3s793 4 · 0 0

A strong military is important for the safety of the country. Not only for deterring other aggressive nations but also in times of national disasters and emergency situations. It is the National Guard that helps out in floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. We have seen evidence of what can happen when we do not pay attention to our military needs. Pearl Harbor is one example. We need not be offensive with our military but we must be sure that we do not leave ourselves open to unfriendly nations that would like nothing better than to steal our resources and our liberty.

2006-12-08 02:42:37 · answer #2 · answered by diogenese_97 5 · 1 0

Flat taxes are generally not appreciated. With a budget, the overall military spending can be shared by all with each individual sharing a percentage according to his/her gross earnings. Regardless, if you state your $5,000.00 is going to a specific item (military) you should put all of it in that account. The public in general again does not appreciate "extra" going into other programs they were not consulted with.

2006-12-08 03:13:18 · answer #3 · answered by Curly 1 · 0 0

if military technologies(i.e. GPS, Internet, night vision, Kevlar, gortex, etc ) were able to be sold the military would not need as much tax money

2006-12-08 03:25:44 · answer #4 · answered by sand runner 3 · 0 0

It costs money to make weapons, train and pay our soldiers, to provide aid for their spouses and children, to provide medical care to soldiers and their families. This stuff doesn't pay for itself. Our military need supplies. That's the biggest thing: Supplies. Boots, socks, uniforms, food etc...

2006-12-08 02:31:34 · answer #5 · answered by Mommy 3 · 1 0

the simplest answer to this question is if we don't have one, we're an even bigger targer then we already are now. It's like being in a snowball fight and you have no snow balls

2006-12-08 02:31:10 · answer #6 · answered by Willard C 1 · 0 0

To provide for a common defense.

2006-12-08 02:26:26 · answer #7 · answered by Aggie80 5 · 1 0

"To be prepared for war is the most effective means of preserving peace." -- General George Washington

2006-12-08 02:32:26 · answer #8 · answered by sarge927 7 · 2 0

Blowing stuff up costs money, how much **** you wanna blow up?

2006-12-08 03:20:03 · answer #9 · answered by Steve 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers