
Levin: War Tax 'Probably Not' Going To Happen During Recession
Appearing on Face The Nation, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) downplayed the idea of a war tax. "In the middle of a recession we're probably not going to be able to increase taxes to pay for it," said Levin. "There should have been, as far as I'm concerned, tax increases for upper bracket folks who did so well during the Bush years - that's where the tax increases should have taken place. But that should have happened some time ago."
Graham: Can We Cut Stimulus To Pay For Afghanistan?
Appearing on This Week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called for cuts in domestic spending, including the stimulus package and the health care bill, to pay for the Afghanistan war. "Well, I'd like to see an endeavor to see if we can cut current spending and find some dollars that we're spending today to pay for the war, and prioritize American spending. Where does our national security rate in terms of spending?" said Graham. "Are there things that we can do in the stimulus package? Can we trim up the health care bill and other big-ticket items to pay for a war that we can't afford to lose?"
Lugar's 'Audacious' Proposal: Delay Health Care Debate, Focus On Afghanistan And Economy
Appearing on State of the Union, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) said that the health care bill should be postponed, in order to focus on Afghanistan and the economy. "The war is terribly important," Lugar said. "Jobs and our economy are terribly important. This may be an audacious suggestion, but I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year, the same way we put cap-and-trade and climate change [aside], and talk now about the essentials -- the war and money."
Sanders Stops Short Of Saying He'll Filibuster Bill Without Public Option
Also on This Week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) signaled his strong support for a public option -- but didn't go so far as to say he would filibuster a bill without one. "I would be very reluctant to support legislation that did not have a strong public option," said Sanders. When asked whether he would support a filibuster, Sanders said: "I gotta see what ends up happening."
Huckabee Not Sure About 2012 -- Would Need Big GOP Support
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) said that he's not ready to decide on whether to run for president again -- and that it would depend on whether he can get establishment Republican support. "I would have to see that the Republicans would be willing to unite behind me," Huckabee said. "The last time out my biggest challenge was with the establishment Republicans, who just never showed their support."
Armey On GOP Purity Resolution: 'Demonstrate That You're Someone Like Us"
Appearing on Face The Nation, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) spoke favorably of the so-called "purity" resolution being proposed at the Republican National Committee, saying that it calls on candidates to "demonstrate some allegiance to the primary positions taken by the party. That's not a litmus test. That's just if you want us to give you our money, our support, our troops in the field, our endorsements, then demonstrate that you're someone like us."
Scozzafava: 'I Think It WAs Very Difficult' For RNC 'Not To Cave In' To The Right
Also on Face The Nation, former NY-23 Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava blamed the loss of the special election on conservative groups such as the Club For Growth, who forced her out of the race in favor of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman (she subsequently endorsed Democrat Bill Owens). "I think it was very difficult for leadership at the RNC not to cave in to the pressures that they were receiving from the right," said Scozzafava.
mcc
November 29, 2009 1:11 PM
Graham is upset that having to spend so much time on obstructing the Democrats' plans on health care is preventing him from getting to work on obstructing the Democrats' plans on the economy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 29, 2009 1:29 PM
Well Lugar's quote sucks. I thought that he was flying below the radar and not taking up republican talking points. I actually thought he liked obama. We have delayed long enough. Let's vote asap on healthcare and then they can "debate" the other issues. Stop obstructing and work for the people.
On graham and war spending. I would love for a talking head to ask these guys exactly why we need 13 aircraft carriers at a billion plus a pop, plus all the annual maintenance costs and all these other warships and super high-tech and costly weapon systems. We have the largest navy in the world and more ships than the top ten combined, nine of which are our allies. Also, how many carriers do the taliban or al queda have? Oh, that's right zippo. How many radar stations do they have so we need radar evading planes? That's right zippo. Want to cut spending? Halve the pentagon budget and get rid of all this ridiculous spending. Also, get our freaking allies to contribute. Sanders was right on point. This war spending, to line the coffers of repuke contributors, has got to stop. It's nuts and we can't afford it. There is absolutely no logical reason to be spending like a drunken sailor on high tech and absurdly expensive weapons when we need special forces and light infantry to go in and take out the criminals. Pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
November 29, 2009 1:49 PM
That's right. We should dismantle the military to only what's needed to protect the nation and let the rest of the world fight it out amongst themselves. Of my reasons to vote for Obama was to put a stop to the war. I think it's why Republicans voted for him as well.
Oh well, it's just another brick in the wall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 29, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to shooter242
Noone is advocating that. I assume that your point was addressed to me. The point is who is the enemy, now and in the foreseeable future, and what do we need to take them out. We are not fighting the japanese imperial navy anymore and don't need all these carriers. We have wasted trillions on carriers for decades to fight the last war.
How many carriers does the current and future enemy have? NONE.
How many do we have in service? 11, not the 13 I said. I was off by 2. Our allies also have 9 more carriers, so we have 20 against? ZERO.
They cost 12 billion, with a b, to develop and 12 to 14 billion per copy. For what? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is a complete waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.
We cannot afford these ridiculously expensive toys. We could cut the fleet in half and still have the most incredibly powerful fleet in the world. Throw in the allies and what do we have to fear? Nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 29, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to shooter242
Forgot to add the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Carrier
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vueartist
November 29, 2009 2:07 PM
WTF - Lugar and Graham seem to think killing folks in Afghanistan is more important than taking care of our people' health and economy! Their priorities are askew, for obvious political reasons, and unwilling to raise taxes to pay for a war that was started, neglected and should have been concluded under the Bush administration. This just another legacy that the American citizens will have to pay for while the Republicans stall and obstruct progress to help our own people. Really, what are we fighting for or against in Afghanistan? Democracy there or here?
I just don't understand anymore. God help us!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
November 29, 2009 2:12 PM in reply to vueartist
Obviously, we are fighting for VICTORY. Don't you like VICTORY?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 29, 2009 3:23 PM in reply to vueartist
It would be a lot easier to say their priorities are askew if Democrats weren't going to sign on for escalating wars of futility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 29, 2009 6:12 PM in reply to bluebell
You voted for the guy who campaigned on escalating said war. What does that make you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 29, 2009 6:39 PM in reply to FreeRider
A former Democract
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 29, 2009 8:14 PM in reply to bluebell
Yeah, right! You've been threating to leave the party every week for the last year.
It also makes you stupid. Only a moron votes for someone who openly campaigns on doing something to which they are vehemently opposed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
November 29, 2009 2:14 PM
Since the tax would only be on the wealthy - who are affected very little, if at all, by recession, why should the timing make the slightest bit of difference?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
November 29, 2009 2:36 PM in reply to GayIthacan
Also, while lots of people who were rich a few years ago aren't anymore, I don't see any problem with taxing people who still are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
November 29, 2009 2:21 PM
Where was Graham's concern for funding when Bush was cutting taxes while entering his war of choice in Iraq? Why didn't he say "err, President Bush maybe you should raise taxes to pay for the war in Iraq now".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
November 29, 2009 2:34 PM
They never miss an opportunity to try and attack the Democrats' progressive social policies. "You want money to pay for Afghanistan, cut back on any social program I don't like?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 29, 2009 6:52 PM
Looks like *somebody* took his *GRUMPY PILLS* before going on Faux News Sunday!
-"I would have to see that the Republicans would be willing to unite behind me," Huckabee said. "The last time out my biggest challenge was with the establishment Republicans, who just never showed their support."-
What a damn *wet blanket* he's turned into; where's that hipster rock band the bible thumper used to tow around??! The sad sacks could play Dylan! "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where it's at -- you had no faith to lose, and you know it!" Yes, these days Republicans either get Scozzafava'd or in his case, Palinated! Don't look for him soon making any big buys in Iowa!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hsr0601
November 30, 2009 7:52 AM
The fate of America lies in the direction of money, namely, war or job. The existing economic crisis facing world might be a prelude to another great depression fueled by a wrong and irrevocable choice, from the previous object lessons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
November 30, 2009 10:50 AM
Certainly there is already enough money in the Defense Dept. to fund a war in Afghanistan. Just take it from somewhere else in the budget.
Obama is missing a unique opportunity where stopping a war would make him appear to be a more courageous leader. I live in a reactionary red rural county and people talk openly of the desire to stop the war in Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?