Question:
Should Republicans have to pay more taxes?
2009-04-08 08:45:23 UTC
Should Republicans be forced to pay higher taxes to pay for the Iraq War, which was based on lies and pay for the 11 TRILLION dollar debt at the time Bush left office? I think they should.

When Clinton left, the country was prosperous with a national surplus. Look what Bush and Darth Cheney did to this country. They gave us a couple of fake wars and a depression. They should be tried at The Hague! I hate Republicans! If you are a Republican, that means YOU!

We need a new tax to pay down this debt. We can call it the Republican Tax in which we tax all Republicans an extra 25%-30% on their income tax. Who is with me?
28 answers:
2009-04-08 08:51:13 UTC
YES



they will......



ha ha h ah ha hahaha
2009-04-08 09:08:54 UTC
Wow! Where to begin with this one!



First of all there never was a surplus under Bill Clinton.

Here is the treasury's own web site showing the accumulated national debt by year. In no year does the debt go down as it would if there were a surplus:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm



The "surplus" merely consisted of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and the Highway trust fund. This kind of phony accounting became common in the Clinton years with major redefinitions of Inflation, Deficit, and Gross Domestic Product, all designed to make politicians look good.



The economy was running at record levels (well record levels as measured by the new phony accounting anyway) from 1995 when the Republicans took control of Congress until 2007 when the Democrats took it back. If you are upset about the economy collapsing then talk to the Democrats.



If you are worried about deficit spending then how in the world can you ever support Obama? He is doubling the national debt and raising it to a level where the interest alone will exceed the current income tax revenue. How long can we sustain that level of interest? Who is going to loan us 100% of our annual operating budget? Our credit line is nearly exhausted already.



We need an immediate massive cut in government spending while we still have time.
IceT
2009-04-08 08:59:02 UTC
Sure if Democrats will pay more taxes for the mortgage crisis current economic crisis, all bailouts and stimulus that they, two Democrat presidents, the community reinvestment act, and Acorn have caused! Obama has accomplished something even Bush couldn't and that is he has doubled the national debt in 3 months and it took Bush 8 years. How many more times will Obama double the national debt in 4 years? We need a new tax on the tax and spend Democrats we can call it the Democrat tax and we will tax all Democrats an extra 50% on their income tax. Democrat politicians should get taxed retroactively back to the late 70's at 95%.
?
2016-12-08 12:49:38 UTC
Your argument is incorrect because of the fact no longer all taxes are a redistribution of wealth. whilst the government will advance taxes, it would be spent on some thing that reward everybody! to illustrate, if the government raised taxes 10% for militia spending, that's no longer wealth redistribution. A properly geared up militia reward everybody in this u . s . a ., no longer purely the poor. Now shall we are saying that the government will advance taxes 10% to institute a nationalized wellness care, it fairly is wealth redistribution. purely the poor might income on the type of application. you're truly taking funds from the wealthy interior the type of taxes and giving it to the poor interior the type of wellness care. Even Republicans and Libertarians, like myself, understand that some taxation is needed, yet we additionally understand that those taxes must be spent on classes that benefit everybody. At one time, the region of the federal government exchange into very sparkling, yet because of the fact the form has been trampled, those strains have blurred. EDIT the clarification we've not considered a fiscally conservative Republican in an prolonged time, is with the help of the fact the Republican occasion, like the Democratic occasion, has exchange into corrupt. like it or no longer, it fairly is the actuality and why i would be balloting third occasion. the only Republican, worth of being referred to as a Republican, exchange into Ron Paul and check out how lots help he recieved from the yank public. McCain isn't the guy that we ought to instruction manual this u . s . a ., yet he will harm this u . s . a . below Obama. he's the lesser of two evils. Clinton exchange right into a conservative? Please. the only ingredient Clinton exchange into conservative with, exchange into the actuality. the guy exchange right into a mendacity snake.
bmovies60
2009-04-08 08:59:48 UTC
"Should Republicans be forced to pay higher taxes to pay for the Iraq War,"



The Iraq war has already been paid for.



"which was based on lies"



No it wasnt.



"When Clinton left, the country was prosperous with a national surplus"



When Clinton left we were going into a recession and we had no surplus.



"I happen to be a very influential member of the state"



No. You're big nobody, living in his mommas basement, pretending to be somebody. You have no influence with anyone except with your mother whom you occasionally convince to give you a couple dollars spending money and buy you the latest xbox video games.
rrm38
2009-04-08 08:55:42 UTC
Okay, I'm not a Republican but I'll accept higher taxes for military/defense spending. In turn, the Democrats need to receive a Democrat Tax to cover the national health care plan, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and college for all. I'll happily disavow myself of all those "services" in exchange for eliminating the tax burden I'm taking on to pay for them. I'll wager that the Republican Tax would end up being much lower in the long run.
Kinkade 0001
2009-04-08 09:12:01 UTC
People like you should be taxed if they breed. The world already has plenty of air heads without you adding to the confusion.

Conservatives spend on national defense, a governmental obligation spelled out in the Constitution. Liberals spend twice as much on social welfare programs which, although morally laudable, are not a Constitutional function of the federal government.
Abox5
2009-04-08 08:52:34 UTC
I think a Democrat tax would be much better, but wait I forgot Democrats don't work and pay taxes. They just sit around and see how much free stuff they can get from the government. So that won't work. I guess we'll have to tax the Republicans. They actually work and pay taxes. Good Idea
2009-04-08 08:50:36 UTC
libs are the ones who want higher taxes, let those f*ckers pay it.



anyway, i hate you too. your plan is stupid. so are you.



"All Obama is doing is trying to save the country from the George Bush Holocaust. This is what we get after 8 years of a low I.Q chimp for president."



um. yeah. he is trying to save the country from 8 years of Bush by outspending him in the first four months?



influential member of the state huh? state mental facility, maybe.
2009-04-08 08:51:34 UTC
The average Republican already pays more in taxes than the average Democrat, we're more sucessful and harding working. Now why don't you be a good little idiot and shut up, there are adults here.
Vince - IS BACK FOR REVENGE
2009-04-08 08:51:28 UTC
No..that's completely ridiculous.



This is supposed to be a laissez faire economy, and it puts the lead responsibility on the shoulders of the individual. "We are in this together", kind of mentality. A political party affiliation should not determine tax rates.
2009-04-08 08:55:32 UTC
Democrats in Congress were on board too. They passed the spending in Congress. So if you are trying to make a point, you are doing a very very bad job of it. Try Again!
2009-04-08 08:52:46 UTC
Should Democrats be forced to pay higher taxes, since they used fear tactics to pass a 700+ billion bailout bill?
2009-04-08 08:59:33 UTC
They already Pay LL the taxes--as democrats are mostly tax cheaters--and criminal tax dodgers--and so far--no one in congress pays taxes--so reoubs support the welfare--dems--and the tax cheating libs..so--yes--we do pay more taxes--isn't fair--but someone has to be the adults in America--sure isn't going to be the dimocraps.
hmmmmmmmmm
2009-04-08 08:51:09 UTC
id·i·ot (ĭd'ē-ət) Pronunciation Key

n.

A foolish or stupid person.

A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.





We are already paying for most liberals and democrats
2009-04-08 09:03:12 UTC
what about the Democrats in Congress who approved all the spending and the war in Iraq?......or do you still believe that none of them went along with Bush.......it must be nice to live in lala land
Pfo
2009-04-08 08:55:44 UTC
We already do pay most of the taxes.



Again, this Clinton surplus myth emerges. Go to http://www.treasury.gov Find me this surplus and prove me wrong that it never existed.
2009-04-08 08:54:14 UTC
Oh, you must be over at Disneyland..in the Fantasyland section of the park. There is a cure for that which ails you!
paulcondo
2009-04-08 08:51:23 UTC
Frank good question here in columbus,ohio thy build a 400 million dollar trash burning power plant that never work thy all send their children to public schools and I paying for that thy need to raise their taxes and be proud of it
DarkOmen
2009-04-08 08:50:34 UTC
Hell no. I pay enough... the sad part is I have to start paying for a bunch of childish nonsense that these D.C morons call a stimulus.
2009-04-08 08:56:08 UTC
Good one. It looks like you fooled a lot of people.
Curtis 1911
2009-04-08 08:50:05 UTC
Republicans already pay more taxes.



Now let's make liberals pay for the next terrorist attack.



911 cost the US over 300 Trillion.



Hey you are a good example of liberal tunnel vision, and voter ignorance.
regerugged
2009-04-08 08:49:36 UTC
Goofy is the only word that comes to mind.
2009-04-08 08:49:28 UTC
No Democrats should since they are the ones that want the government to provide them with their every need from the time they are born until the time they die.
2009-04-08 08:55:06 UTC
Doesn't work that way.
2009-04-08 08:50:06 UTC
considiring arnold's the governor of california's net worth is $1 billion.. why not?????????





he wont go broke for centurys
Chuck
2009-04-08 08:49:25 UTC
No.
2009-04-08 08:51:07 UTC
Clinton added 4.5 Trillion dollars to the national debt while in office -- w/ no economic problems (terrorist attacks, dot com bubble busts, housing crisis, no wars).



"Should Republicans be forced to pay higher taxes to pay for the Iraq War, which was based on lies"



The Iraq War Vote: Look at all of those D's in the YEA column...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237



Inconvenient quotes by very notable leaders who blame the war on Bush:



Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998



"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002



"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998



"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998



"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002



"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002



"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002



"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002



"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003



"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998



"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002



"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002



"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002



"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002



"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002



"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002



"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998



"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...