Poll: Woul you be wiiling to pay more?

[Kevatc]

A large chunk of our national debt has to do with having two unfunded wars. In our efforts to reduce our ever increasing debt would you be willing to put some skin in the game buy agreeing to pay more taxes with those funds going only to deficit reduction?

Read More

 

[LyleLovett666]

It's completely untrue that a large portion of our debt is the two recent wars.No amount of tax money is enough for them and when they take more they just spend more.This is not a tax problem.This is a spending problem.The way to fix this is to cut spending.

 

[Crazyeye24]

It would be more appropriate to hold the politicians accountable for the reckless spending they do, all the vacations they take, the perks & retirement they receive from the tax payers. I guarantee you if they were smart with our money, kept the growth of government to a minimum and actually participated in all plans that they, by law, are supposed to, we would have a large surplus. The war would be funded, taxes would be lower and so many people wouldn't be sucking on the government's tit.

 

[Mark W.]

its pretty simple there to many people in the wagon and the few that are pulling it are worn out.

And yet every idea, every solution, them morons in Washington, or Salem or where ever come up with involves more spending.

 

[Garg]

in before the lock

 

[Redcap]

Absolutely not. I pay too damn much in taxes as it sits.

 

[JSJPDX]

You mean like the social security fund was only supposed to be used to pay retirees?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Even with Rex Nutting's "creative" statements and math concerning the '09 budget, and the following graph that groups the respective admin's years, I would like to point something out about spending growth.


Despite the fact that in late '08-'09 (FY) both "unfunded wars" were still being fought, and the $410 Billion TARP was passed and the $825 Billion obama "stimulus bill" was passed by Congress, (total T+S=$1.235 TRILLION with a "T") we managed to spend MORE the following cycle!

If one breaks out the spending of '09, which the Democratic controlled Congress passed, and Bush refused to sign, the spending increase for 2009 was 17% !!!!

Looking at the graph, one has to wonder, how in the heck did we manage to increase spending an additional 1.4% over 2006-2009, when we are no longer fighting in Iraq, and we haven't had another TARP, and/or another stimulus?

I for one, am not willing to pay more, when spending is at this level. Especially when there is NO CONCEIVABLE REASON FOR IT!
TARP is done.
The auto bailouts are over.
The war in Iraq is over.
We are drawing down troop strength in Afghanistan.
The stimulus is is over.
Bin Laden is dead.
The green energy money has been blown on bankrupt companies.
Where the heck is THAT MUCH MONEY GOING?!?

Of course, we might know, if the Senate would pass a budget. The last Budget Harry Reid's Senate passed was over 3 years ago.
So where's the money going?
It certainly hasn't been a "transparent" process thus far!

Considering that we AREN'T spending on TARP and the stimulus any longer, spending should have decreased by over $1.2 Trillion annually!
But it hasn't!
Wouldn't a better question be: Why not?

 

[Kevatc]

It's completely untrue that a large portion of our debt is the two recent wars.No amount of tax money is enough for them and when they take more they just spend more.This is not a tax problem.This is a spending problem.The way to fix this is to cut spending.

Exactly right that Iraq and A-stan are spending problems. They are unfunded wars. How should they be paid for? These are apparently wars necessary for the security of our country. Shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game?

 

[LyleLovett666]

Everybody already has more than enough skin in the game.Shouldn't we be allowed to keep some of our skin for our selves?

 

[Redcap]

Exactly right that Iraq and A-stan are spending problems. They are unfunded wars. How should they be paid for? These are apparently wars necessary for the security of our country. Shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game?

 

[Grunwald]

Exactly right that Iraq and A-stan are spending problems. They are unfunded wars. How should they be paid for? These are apparently wars necessary for the security of our country. Shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game?

Yes they are a problem, but the bigger problem is how government spend money - or more precisely how they prioritize the .spending.
It is akin to a family that knows that each month they have to pay for rent, utilities and food as well as transportation (let's say gasoline).
So they sign up for cable, broadband internet and smartphone plans for everyone, then go buy new clothes which they did not need, go out to dinner almost every night and then complain that they do not have enough money to pay the rent.

 

[The B]

Who's the bubbleguming arftard who voted yes?

 

[Bigfoot]

Starts with a K

 

[billstaf]

Where is it written that these two wars have anything to do with our national security? To date we have spent 10 years, gobs of money and blood and what do we have for it? The governments and people in both Iraq and Afghanistan hate us with a passion. We're spreading money all over the middle-east at a huge cost to American taxpayers and there is no apparent ROI.

If it was up to me, I'd pull every US soldier and civilian out of both places and all of their gear right now. Let those illiterate goat humpers kill each other. What does it matter to us? We should be spending that money right here in America where it could at least do some good.

BTW. I don't want to spend another dime of my money on taxes until we get some sanity back in Washington, DC.

 

[The B]

Where is it written that these two wars have anything to do with our national security? To date we have spent 10 years, gobs of money and blood and what do we have for it?

A shat-on Constitution.

 

[The B]

Exactly right that Iraq and A-stan are spending problems. They are unfunded wars. How should they be paid for? These are apparently wars necessary for the security of our country. Shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game?

All that's necessary for the security of ANY country is an armed and willing society.

You seriously think these "wars" are for anything other than sport and money?

 

[joken]

Kevatc voted twice.

 

[Kevatc]

Kevatc voted twice.

Haven't voted at all.


I did find this though which answers some questions about the financial impacts the war costs have on GDP and debt: <broken link removed>

It's interesting to see that the overwhelming numbers indicate that they would not pay additional taxes to help reduce the debt. I am curious what the relationship would be between those who completely supported the OIF and OEF efforts but say no to paying for them now. I would assume those folks wouldn't have wanted to pay more in tax when those wars were imminent. As the saying goes there is no such thing as a free lunch but I guess that's how some want it.

 

[mat33]

I'd be willing to pay more taxes if we ended the two wars and brought our troops home from the dozens of other countries we're currently occupying. Only 1/4 of our defense spending is for Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, maybe cut back on some entitelment programs too, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.