TexasCHLforum.com

I've always voted for the Republican Presidential candidate since 1964 for one reason or the other. I lived through the Viet Nam & Civil Rights era, etc, etc. I definitely DID NOT support the current POTUS' election and I ain't interested in this global warning stuff.

You know what, I think I approve of the POTUS's speech tonight. For many years, I've said that we (USA) are not our brother's keeper. How does that grab you?

He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.

What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.

joe817 wrote:He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.

What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.

Yepper, wars cost money; money that perhaps could go toward alleviatng domestic issues rather than er, uh...well, you know. I never thought I'd say something like that but, I've never been this old before.

OTOH, wars require materiel and supplies that provide jobs. Isn't that right, FDR?

I was going to start a post w/ this comment but will put it here since I am late due to eating a big supper.

He has shown in the past he does not care one rip for the American Soilder. Consider all his speeches in Europe about arogant Americans almost in sight of our war dead.

He is bringing the troops home to station them strategically to put down the Tea Parties, Constitutional Small Govt movements, any unrest that might grow into revolution & try to intimidate us who are fed up w/ the Socialist Govt. We will be financing w/ that War Tax the very Military that is ordered into our streets & maybe the homes of neighbor sympathisers.
Jerry W. Young
aka LT

joe817 wrote:He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.

What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.

I agree with a war tax. If a war is important enough to fight, it is important enough to pay for with an extra tax, and if we support the war, we should support paying for it.

nitrogen wrote:

joe817 wrote:He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.

What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.

I agree with a war tax. If a war is important enough to fight, it is important enough to pay for with an extra tax, and if we support the war, we should support paying for it.

An historic point! WWI and WWII were largely supported by War Bonds sold on the home front, weren't they?

Oldgringo wrote:You know what, I think I approve of the POTUS's speech tonight. For many years, I've said that we (USA) are not our brother's keeper. How does that grab you?

Better than the 30,000 additional troops Obama wants to send to Afghanisatan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNew ... 2420091201

nitrogen wrote:I agree with a war tax. If a war is important enough to fight, it is important enough to pay for with an extra tax, and if we support the war, we should support paying for it.

I disagree with a war tax for the same reason. You're right that if you support the war, you should support paying for it. The right thing to do is allow people to make voluntary contributions and the government will spend that on the mideast wars but not a penny more.

nitrogen wrote:

joe817 wrote:He certainly is a good orator. Man, can he deliver a good speech.

What bothered me was the commentary afterwards when Katie C. was interviewing a democrat Congressman. It blew me away. Caught me totally off guard. The "War Tax" will be imposed on all tax payers who earn in excess of $30,000 per year. That is if his bill gets approved.

I agree with a war tax. If a war is important enough to fight, it is important enough to pay for with an extra tax, and if we support the war, we should support paying for it.

Yes, through voluntary war bonds, just like WW2.

Oldgringo wrote: An historic point! WWI and WWII were largely supported by War Bonds sold on the home front, weren't they?

I'm not too sure how I feel about war bonds as the sole means of financing military campaigns and providing for the national defense is one of few enumerated powers of the Fed. It's certainly the ideal way to go. However, I would like all deployments to require a formal Declaration of War as well. Ideally.
I used to think Ron Paul had a very weak stance on national defense, but the more I listen to him the more sense he makes. We did these things traditionally to avoid unnecessary and costly military conflicts, checks and balances thing. Of course it only really works if you take a more traditional "isolationist" stance on military action which we would have to dramatically scale back international presence to accomplish. Not just Iraq/Afghanistan but Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc, etc.

From what I understand historically, which doesn't amount to much as most of you probably have children older than me, the WWII war bonds were more of a counter to take fiat currency out of circulation to counter the enormous expenditures of the federal government. (Finger in levy at best)
So the goal was to combat inflation by reducing consumer spending as well as to foster greater civilian population for the war effort. As the global economy currently relies on American's spending ourselves out of house and home, (literally) I'm not really sure how things would shake out.

Of course the government of the time also imposed price and wage controls, production controls, rationing, controls on the level of interest rates on Treasury securities, and regulations on installment loans. One of those beautiful "unintended" consequences of wage controls ultimately resulted in our current health insurance system! Or so I'm told. Could have also been the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. I mean, those EVIL EVIL INSURANCE COMPANIES! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! CEO SALARIES! RABBLE!

Fact is when the war is over & every troop is back on American soil the tax will not go away no matter what they promice.
Our Great Grand children will still be paying it.

War bonds is the answer. Fact is when We The People were footing the bill for the war, the politicians let the military fight the war & WIN.

It was just a few years ago that the telephone tax (which was a "soak the rich" tax when passed) was finally repealed. It was passed to pay for a war: the Spanish-American war. Yup, the one in 1898, and we were stuck with the tax for over a century.

Did you notice that no particular promises were made as to what
would be accomplished by the time we pull out in 2011?

President Karzai runs a corrupt government. Everyone's on the take
and no one is taking care of the people. Karzai's brother is a bigtime doper.

What about this foolishness that we Americans have to train the ANA
(Afghan National Army) to shoot?? Aren't all Afghani boys given an AK-47
as soon as they can walk? It's their country, and if they can't find the
Taliban, it's because they don't want to find the Taliban.

The Taliban are resurgent because Karzai's a bum and the people don't support
him, especially after he just stole the election. He is derided as being the "Mayor
of Kabul" since the federal government is weak outside of the capital city.

Recent interviews of American military personnel in theater have included several
comments that we ought to leave since the Afghans have to sort out their own
problems.

It seems to me that the troop surge announced in tonight's speech may do some good,
but when 2011 rolls around we're going to leave and let the Afghans kill each other any way they
want.

SIA

longtooth wrote:Fact is when the war is over & every troop is back on American soil the tax will not go away no matter what they promice.

Good point.

I like the idea of having an analog of the E-series bonds that Roosevelt approved like in WWII. However it happens, though, in general, if people approve of a war, extra funding should also come with it, in the form of a tax, a bond, or what have you.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Did you notice that no particular promises were made as to what
would be accomplished by the time we pull out in 2011?

President Karzai runs a corrupt government. Everyone's on the take
and no one is taking care of the people. Karzai's brother is a bigtime doper.

What about this foolishness that we Americans have to train the ANA
(Afghan National Army) to shoot?? Aren't all Afghani boys given an AK-47
as soon as they can walk? It's their country, and if they can't find the
Taliban, it's because they don't want to find the Taliban.

The Taliban are resurgent because Karzai's a bum and the people don't support
him, especially after he just stole the election. He is derided as being the "Mayor
of Kabul" since the federal government is weak outside of the capital city.

Recent interviews of American military personnel in theater have included several
comments that we ought to leave since the Afghans have to sort out their own
problems.

It seems to me that the troop surge announced in tonight's speech may do some good,
but when 2011 rolls around we're going to leave and let the Afghans kill each other any way they
want.

SIA

It is very strange...the typical ANA Soldier (we had a company attached to our FOB) appears to have no marksmanship skills. The typical Pashtun Insurgent (there are plenty of groups besides the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighting us) has a reputation for being fierce Marksmen throughout the centuries. It makes me wonder where we are pulling the ANA recruits from (there are many ethnic groups in Afghanistan, which is another issue when trying to unify a country).