Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 07 Aug '11 19:49
    I find it rather strange that no one is talking about how GW started (and Obama continues) wars that are unfunded!

    Our soldiers risk their lives, but no one is being asked to foot the bill. No one is being asked to contribute to the war. I find that rather strange.

    Why has no one figured out exactly how much we've spent on these wars (Lybia included) and designed a tax to pay for it?

    I'd suggest something like a 1% national sales tax that will expire once the total cost for the wars has been collected.
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    07 Aug '11 19:56 / 1 edit
    The money required is in the hands of the ultra wealthy and they refuse to let it be taxed. They also don't buy stuff very much so your tax wouldn't help.

    As far as "who pays for it" - who pays for what exactly? The weapons are already in existence. The troops are already trained.
  3. 07 Aug '11 19:59
    I think there is plenty of money floating around the economy to pay for it.

    I suppose the weapons used didn't really need to be in existance at all. We don't have to replace them, countries like China or Russia would never attack us. We have countries like Germany and France to defend us if we're attacked!
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    07 Aug '11 20:01
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I think there is plenty of money floating around the economy to pay for it.

    I suppose the weapons used didn't really need to be in existance at all. We don't have to replace them, countries like China or Russia would never attack us. We have countries like Germany and France to defend us if we're attacked!
    The economy's not doing too well my friend.

    The weapons we have are obsolete. Replacing them is irrelevant with respect to the current conflict.
  5. 07 Aug '11 20:02
    The economy is sucky, but a 1% sales tax won't hurt it.

    As for our weapons being no good, all I can say is that I hope not. But then again, perhaps Germany and France have a better military.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    07 Aug '11 20:08
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The economy is sucky, but a 1% sales tax won't hurt it.

    As for our weapons being no good, all I can say is that I hope not. But then again, perhaps Germany and France have a better military.
    Then I guess we can cut funding for stealth aircraft, replacement ICBMs, new ships, etc?
  7. 07 Aug '11 20:09
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Then I guess we can cut funding for stealth aircraft, replacement ICBMs, new ships, etc?
    You called them obsolete, not me.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    07 Aug '11 20:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You called them obsolete, not me.
    I called them obsolete because they are. That's why our government spends so much money inventing new weapons all the time. You wouldn't want to be flying an F-4 against a Sukhoi Flanker for example.

    Did you know we have massive warehouses full of battleship ammunition that we never use? One of these days they're going to figure out how to stick JDAM on them I bet.
  9. 07 Aug '11 20:13
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The economy is sucky, but a 1% sales tax won't hurt it.

    As for our weapons being no good, all I can say is that I hope not. But then again, perhaps Germany and France have a better military.
    In what sense is the 9th highest GDP per capita in the world "sucky"?
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    07 Aug '11 20:16
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    In what sense is the 9th highest GDP per capita in the world "sucky"?
    I said it was sucky because I was arguing against a flat sales tax on everything as a means of paying for the war.
  11. 07 Aug '11 20:16
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    In what sense is the 9th highest GDP per capita in the world "sucky"?
    It is sucky when compared to what the US economy used to be.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    07 Aug '11 20:17
    Originally posted by Eladar
    It is sucky when compared to what the US economy used to be.
    Or what it could be...
  13. 07 Aug '11 20:19
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Or what it could be...
    Or what it should be...
  14. 07 Aug '11 20:22
    Originally posted by Eladar
    It is sucky when compared to what the US economy used to be.
    Well, it could be fifth or so, with some reforms, but 9th is still very good especially considering the population of the US (China, for example, is 94th on the same 2010 IMF list), and hardly "sucky".
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    07 Aug '11 20:25
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, it could be fifth or so, with some reforms, but 9th is still very good especially considering the population of the US (China, for example, is 94th on the same 2010 IMF list), and hardly "sucky".
    NO WE MUST BE #1