If we had to pay for it now, instead of spending on deficit, would the reps still be all for it?
2007-03-29
05:53:04
·
10 answers
·
asked by
hichefheidi
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
I saw a tax removed when I started being able to write off my health insurance. Also, I saw one removed when I could write off my rent. They used to tax me for those things, and now they don't. But that wasn't the point of the question.
2007-03-29
06:18:55 ·
update #1
social security had a surplus when Bush took office, and he gave a check to every tax paying american. i certainly hope that didn't put the program in a deficit...
2007-03-29
06:22:25 ·
update #2
butterbar, I have complained about those...this is a different question. I wish you would have answered it, you are really usually very good at answers. Also, let's compare the percentages of the budget...and you will see that defense takes the biggest portion, with more funding being asked for at every turn. Those other programs that get cut are not of concern to me at this moment. The necessary funding for this war far outweighing the revenue generated creating a huge deficit is this conservatives current question.
2007-03-29
06:25:29 ·
update #3
Maybe - since the Spanish-American War tax was just repealed:
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/9362232/detail.html
We should decide what we need to spend on, and how much money we can obtain, and proceed accordingly.
I have many, many issues with taxation, which I have mentioned elsewhere from time to time.
But to cut to the chase - under the proper circumstances I would support a tax increase for this purpose.
It's been said that this is the only time the US has lowered taxes during wartime. Could be! It's probably also the only time we attempted to set a timetable without regard to the conditions on the ground. (Vietnam was ended with a peace treaty, which the North violated; the US also ignored its obligations. But there wasn't a timeline.) Maybe, upon further reflection, BOTH are bad ideas. I dunno.
2007-03-29 06:07:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well in every war in U.S. history, we, the American people, were asked to personally sacrifice (taxes, civil service, military service). We have NOT seen this from this war and this president. If he cared about winning this war, he would do anything to win it. Asking us to sacrifice is a big way to do that. Instead of deficit spending, raising taxes would ease the pain of debt we have and fund the war. I dont see how you could disagree with everyone making sacrifices so we can win this war. The question is just not being raised
U.S. federal debt - $ 8,850,125,073,080
2007-03-29 13:07:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I'm for it, but no, most "fiscal responsibility" republicans would never go along with it.
Republicans are the biggest crybabies about having to pay their reasonable share of taxes. We have the lowest income tax rate of any developed nation by far, and yet they act like paying taxes is some kind of medieval torture. Republicans are selfish, self-concerned-only crybabies.
"We should cut all taxes and let everyone pay for themselves". Okay. So, pray tell, how are you going to pay for a hospital bill of $1M if you get into a bad accident? Hmm? I hope it happens to you so you can learn a lesson in humility you dumbkopf.
2007-03-29 13:13:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Are you sure the deficit is not because of Social security, or medicare?
Considering the spending on those programs enjoys no Constitutional support as being a legitimate outlay of the peoples' money, how do you explain your support for the $1.5 trillion (and more) spent annually on outlays that have no Constitutional merit?
War is one of the government's Constitutionally enumerated duties; charity isn't. Why don't you complain about those?
2007-03-29 13:14:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
No, but maybe the gov't could sell war bonds like they did in the past.
BTW, when's the last time you've ever seen a tax removed? Tax cuts don't remove taxes, it just allows some people to bypass them.
2007-03-29 12:58:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Yes. Taxes SHOULD be raised for those companies that are profiteering while not paying their fair share of taxes!
But, Dubya's strings won't allow him to... the super rich and powerful are blatantly controlling him to the point where he even LOOKS and WALKS and TALKS like Howdy Doody!
2007-03-29 13:05:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
that's not even the question.
if this is such a national priority - taxes shoudl be raised to whatever levels are needed to pay for this now and it should be done immediately.
any who would fight this needed tax increase could then explain why this is bad - assuming that the war is so critical.
cons are poison - plain and simple...
2007-03-29 12:58:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by nostradamus02012 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Raising tax rates won't necessarily raise tax revenues.
2007-03-29 12:58:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
We should cut taxes all together and let every one pay for themselves.
2007-03-29 12:59:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Happy woman 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
you are always welcome to pay more taxes, you know.
2007-03-29 12:58:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Samm 6
·
2⤊
1⤋