The Right Argument Against the War Tax

If we're going to throw another hundred billion, quarter-trillion down the Af-Pak shithole, the least this president and this Congress can do is fund it with a new, heavy tax on the rich who are the only ones benefitting from American imperalism.

Demanding the escalation in Vietnam Afghanistan be funded by a new, dedicated tax also creates a political strategy for withdrawal.

Crooks and Liars has the video:

Ed Schultz talks to Rep. Alan Grayson about the proposed war surtax to pay for Afghanistan. Grayson feels we've paid too much already for both Iraq and Afghanistan and that it's time to bring the troops home.

Schultz: $234 billion, that’s the price tag; that’s that eight years of war in Afghanistan has already cost this country. Now we’re sending 30,000 more troops—a nearly fifty percent increase. We have no idea how long they’re going to be there or how long it’s going to take to “finish the job”. The idea of a war surtax is gaining momentum in both houses of the Congress and with both parties for that matter. Joining me now Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. Congressman good to have you with us tonight. Should we make sure that we can pay for this next military increase in Afghanistan and how would you propose doing it?

Grayson: I think we’ve paid enough. We’ve paid $3 trillion already for the war in Iraq—that’s $10,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. For my family, my wife, myself, my five children that’s $70,000. Enough is enough—we’ve paid enough for Iraq in both money and blood. We’ve paid enough for Afghanistan. Now it’s time to come home.

Click here to watch the video.

Want to hear more from actual Congressional Democrats and candidates who are calling out Obama on his Afghanistan clusterfuck? Down with Tyranny is taking names and recording quotes of every last dirty fucking hippie one of them.