Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

What side are you on?

Two former advisers to George W. Bush had a spirited debate on Sunday morning over the possibility of a surtax to pay for a troop escalation in Afghanistan.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Dan Senor, a neoconservative war hawk who served as Bush's spokesman in Iraq, called proposals for taxing the rich to pay for the war a backdoor effort to derail any surge in forces. He was opposed by another Bush hand, former communications honcho Matthew Dowd -- a GOP traditionalist -- who said it was unfair to have an increase in troops without a shared social sacrifice.

SENOR: Let's be honest about what this is about. It's about a campaign against President Obama's troops surge. It's not really about paying for it. It's about arguing against it.

GEORGE WILL: And there's going to be no surtax. We all agree on that. So everyone, relax.

Answer Question

Asked by sweet-a-kins at 7:37 PM on Nov. 29, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
Answers (32)
  • DOWD: I agree with you. There is not going to be a tax. But I think this goes to a fundamental value that I think we lost, which is that we can get things for nothing. That we can go to war and not have to pay for it either by cutting the budget or doing something else. We have a war; we don't have a draft. All of these sorts of things, that we think, 'Oh, by way, we can go fight the most important war in the history of our country, but we're not going to have a draft, we're not going to pay for it, we're not going to do anything that causes anybody to sacrifice.'

    SENOR: If [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [House Appropriations Committee Chairman David] Obey were being intellectually honest about this they would wage a war against the President's surge policy Wednesday morning. As opposed to doing this via some proposed surtax.

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 7:37 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • DOWD: David Obey's idea I think underlines the problem that we don't ask people -- when we say these things are important -- we don't ask the country to come together for them.

    Coming days before President Obama is set to announce an increase in roughly 30,000 to 35,000 troops in Afghanistan, the debate between Senor and Dowd provides a window into the Republican Party's internal divisions. While Democratic opposition to a troop escalation is well known, the disagreement inside the GOP seems to be primarily along the margins.

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 7:38 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • We could have skipped that massive waste of a porkulus bill and fund it from revenue. i say pull out, embolden the terrorists again and let them blow up half the country. Maybe the other half would figure out that the terrorist want to KILL US.

    Answer by Carpy at 7:48 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • i'm on the side of fighting against all things obama at every turn.

    oh wait. what was the question again? lolololo

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:48 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • a GOP traditionalist -- who said it was unfair to have an increase in troops without a shared social sacrifice.

    I am in this boat. Maybe then people will actually give a damn and DEMAND results or withdrawel


    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 7:57 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • I think we need to fund wars that we are in.

    I am against the Obama administration sitting on billions of dollars they are going to use to BUY VOTES, then asking for money to pay for other stuff, like the war.

    Can you say DISHONESTY????????????

    They need to stop sitting on that money, because it doesn't belong to them.
    They commandeered that money, and are using t for things that they don't have permission to spend it on.
    They're sitting on PILES of money, stolen money.
    Let 'em use that.

    Answer by mustbeGRACE at 8:02 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • Grace the war hasn't been paid for since its inception, what are you talking about?


    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 8:08 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • I don't think Prez Bush suggested a surtax!

    You follow that, punkin'?

    Answer by mustbeGRACE at 8:12 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • Oi vey!

    You can only go to the wealthy with your hand out so many times. He's either going to have to raise taxes on those making LESS than 250 and break a promise or be the Pres that spent the US of A and break another promise.

    I think he made too many promises.

    Answer by lovinangels at 8:47 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

  • I think if it has been analyzed that waste has been cut from the military spending budget and is minimal and we still need that much money, then we need a tax to fund the war. One example of what I think are many~It bothers me when I goto our military base and the golf course is getting entirely re-done but the troops don't have adequate resources in Iraq. And I am an avid golfer, but I would rather pay MORE money to play and keep the funding and waste out or at least to the min. I don't think ANYONE in DC truly cares about waste. They just want to keep adding projects and spending and not analyzing where the money is specifically going.


    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 8:49 PM on Nov. 29, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.