Quantcast

Should We Tax Countries Where Our Troops Are Stationed?

SodaHead Politics 2011/02/18 11:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Leave it to The Donald to come up with a novel new way of making money. Though he's yet to officially declare his candidacy for the 2012 presidential election, he's already got some ideas to help our struggling economy: for instance, let's tax other countries!

Trump maintains that the hundreds of countries around the world that benefit from the presence of United States Armed Forces personnel should be paying us for the protection we provide. Trump would also tax China because they're "taking all our jobs" and "have no respect for our leadership."

Trump spoke to MSNBC's Chris Jansing:

"What I would be doing is, I'd be taking in hundreds of billions of dollars from other countries. As an example, we protect South Korea. Why aren't they paying us?

"We have thousands of troops in European countries. Thousands. Tens of thousands of troops. If we're protecting countries why aren't they paying for it?"

Read More: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/donald-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Liza Jane 2011/02/18 16:49:32
    No
    Liza Jane
    +12
    We should withdraw our troops and save BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars occupying countries that we have no business being in the first place!

    This should be common sense by now.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Mark 2013/10/30 12:17:33
    Yes
    Mark
    Absolutely tax them, why should I pay to protect their chicken asses
  • Crewshal 2011/03/17 17:00:45 (edited)
    No
    Crewshal
    No we need to leave all other peoples land and stop invading and occupying them,and many times overstaying our welcome.

    Best if those countries Tax All occupiers and invading forces
  • aherbert 2011/03/09 00:17:44
    Yes
    aherbert
    That does sound like a good ideal .... I don't know if it is really something we can do.
  • csrdrunner 2011/02/25 13:48:24
    No
    csrdrunner
    My father was still in the military when I got married to a military man. I totally loved my life as a military brat (lived in Germany a total of 11 years).
    I feel the need for any military overseas is NOT necessary and say BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME. Most of hese countries do not respect us and only want the money we spend on their economies.
    My husband, father and one brother all retired from the U.S. Air Force and my son spent several years in the Air Force, I am from a military family but think it is time for change.
    An idea, post them along our borders.
    I am so upset with our corrupt government that I now have a political site, hope you can visit:
    http://takingamericaback.shut...
  • richardknowlton069@gmail.com 2011/02/23 17:09:53
    Yes
    richardknowlton069@gmail.com
    Yes, I believed that if more countries had to pay four our troops and not get all freebies, then they might be able to solve their own problems.
  • Vene Vidi richard... 2011/03/02 17:55:37
    Vene Vidi
    Freebies? You don't think that USA has interests in having troops in those countries? HUGE interests? Such as first strike ability (or at least fast respons).
    Let me tell you something: in Belgium where I live there are American nuclear weapons aimed at Russia, still from the cold war.
    By allowing USA nuclear weapons on our territory during the cold war, we have - out of our good will - put ourselves on the Russian target list. Don't you think that people willing to do that for you earn some respect?

    And the problems we have to solve now are largely and primarily caused by the Wall Street, so...
  • streetjust 2011/02/23 03:42:24
    No
    streetjust
    +1
    Trump wants to tax those other countries as if we didn’t benefit by a military presence abroad. Our troops aren’t in foreign countries to benefit those countries as much as it has been determined to be in the interest of the U.S. Not only is this plan stupid, but it reinforces the image of the arrogant American.
  • Hellingame 2011/02/22 07:53:21
    No
    Hellingame
    Unless that country specifically invited us over. In that case, they should pay a "maintanance tax/fee".
    But if not
    1) We should get out of their lives.
    2) This is basically taxation without representation which, if I remember correctly, was one of the primary reason we demanded independence.
  • Hugh Campbell 2011/02/21 15:33:15
    No
    Hugh Campbell
    China’s ”Innovative Protectionism” Make it The Global "Puppet Master"

    China is willing to sustain short term pain for the long term gain (the hollowing-out of industry after industry in other countries around the world) to obtain multiple global monopolies and then do what adversarial monopolists: do gouge the consumers.

    China’s ”Innovative Protectionism” is not the competitive devaluation of its own currency, which would enhance China’s exports and inhibits its trading partners’ exports to China, but it’s an over-valuation of the currencies of one or more of its trading partners. This negatively affects all the trade of the pegged trading partner(s), not just trade with China. U.S. Dollar over-valuation was 8 times as damaging to the U.S. recovery as what the media refers to as “China keeping it currency undervalued”.

    The Bloomberg April 2007 article China's Power Erodes Free-Trade Support in Developing Nations, mentions local industries, even in developing countries are being forced out of business:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps...

    The Wall Street Journal November 2008 article China Defends Price Fixing by Vitamin Makers is testimony that China believes it is immune from price-fixing laws:

    http://forexdaily.org.ru/Dow_...

    Because China is a communist country it is a...











    China’s ”Innovative Protectionism” Make it The Global "Puppet Master"

    China is willing to sustain short term pain for the long term gain (the hollowing-out of industry after industry in other countries around the world) to obtain multiple global monopolies and then do what adversarial monopolists: do gouge the consumers.

    China’s ”Innovative Protectionism” is not the competitive devaluation of its own currency, which would enhance China’s exports and inhibits its trading partners’ exports to China, but it’s an over-valuation of the currencies of one or more of its trading partners. This negatively affects all the trade of the pegged trading partner(s), not just trade with China. U.S. Dollar over-valuation was 8 times as damaging to the U.S. recovery as what the media refers to as “China keeping it currency undervalued”.

    The Bloomberg April 2007 article China's Power Erodes Free-Trade Support in Developing Nations, mentions local industries, even in developing countries are being forced out of business:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps...

    The Wall Street Journal November 2008 article China Defends Price Fixing by Vitamin Makers is testimony that China believes it is immune from price-fixing laws:

    http://forexdaily.org.ru/Dow_...

    Because China is a communist country it is able to dictate to its business firms. When dictating increase prices, China contends that its price fixing actions are exempt from prosecution in foreign courts under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, just like OPEC. If the doctrine of sovereign immunity was upheld, once a communist country’s business firms obtained monopolistic market share, much higher prices could be changed on exports creating a “perfect storm” for U.S. consumers. Where the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not available, higher prices would normally be obtained through rising exchange rates, which in China’s case would make all their exports more expensive, make U. S. exports to China less expensive and make China’s holding of U.S. financial assets worth less. An ability to play the sovereign immunity card would provide China the best of all worlds and America the worst of all worlds.

    The closing two questions to a 2010 Consumers Union Activist Summit presentation were regarding quality/safety issues, multiple-industries monopolies and a potential “perfect storm” for U.S. consumers”. This presentation can be found at:

    http://events.consumersunion....

    Click the (CU Summit 2010: Eric Schlosser link) and start at 40:30.

    In November 2003, Warren Buffett in his Fortune, Squanderville versus Thriftville article recommended that America adopt a balanced trade model. The fact that advice advocating balance and sustainability, from a sage the caliber of Warren Buffett, could be virtually ignored for over seven years is unfathomable. Until action is taken on Buffett’s or a similar balanced trade model, America will continue to squander time, treasure and talent in pursuit of an illusionary recovery.

    An Inflation-Neutral Balanced Trade System (BTS), inspired by Warren Buffett’s 2003 Import Certificate Plan is introduced at the top of page 4 of the Pdf, which is available at:

    http://democrats.waysandmeans...
    (more)
  • La 2011/02/20 00:14:49
    No
    La
    Are you all fkn crazy? TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION WAS THE BASIS FOR YOUR WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.
  • Mike 2011/02/19 23:42:43
    No
    Mike
    +1
    If this is ever done, America will loose its dignity!
    Our troops will turn into mercenaries! And so will our country!
    We will be obeying to the highest bidder! Shame on all the people who clicked YES!
    Not to mention, why do we have legitimacy to tax China?
    Or call ourselves leaders?
    We don't, the reason why "our" jobs are going there, is because we failed to understand the importance of trying to keep jobs in the States and now we are criticizing those who got benefited by our mistakes!
    America has to stop thinking they own the world!
    Although being a very important country, America is still just another country in the world! And has to act as such! If this is done it will only serve to show how small we are when we try to impose our will to others, Europe and China will never let this go forward!
    We can't abuse the world!
    You can't talk Geo-Policies like you talk Economy but most importantly you can't use an Economic approach on Geo-Policies, it is improper! it is unethical!
    Instead, Why not increase taxes on RICH "THUGS" like this IDIOT?
  • Angelus 2011/02/19 21:16:36
    No
    Angelus
    +2
    it's a good idea from a economic/business stand point but I;m pretty sure the other countries won't want to pay this tax
    it'll make more enemies for us
  • Roblem BN-0 2011/02/19 20:15:40
    No
    Roblem BN-0
    +2
    Does that also mean that we should pay victims families when our armed forces kill people? Should we pay to rebuild things when we blow them up? How about in Japan... should we tax the people even though it wasn't all the citizen's idea to attack America.

    Just bring our troops home.

    What an idiot.
  • FREED Jesus is LORD♥ 2011/02/19 17:32:41
    Yes
    FREED Jesus is LORD♥
    Bingo!
  • tooner259 2011/02/19 16:26:59
    Yes
    tooner259
    +1
    What a great idea....taxation without representation......oh,waitam...
  • Striker 2011/02/19 16:12:02
    No
    Striker
    +3
    If we simply quit stationing troops all over this stupid world, this question would never arise. Meanwhile Gov taxes us to pay for it, that's also crap.

    Trump, you may be a savvy businessman, but you are also reaching out for the power to Force in your very own style. Forget you!
  • LOTR_HP~RWAC~CFM 2011/02/19 16:06:33
  • Jrogers 2011/02/19 14:04:19
    Yes
    Jrogers
    +2
    Yes, if we are there on a peacekeeping mission. If we are there ununvited.....we would not be able to collect.
  • La Jrogers 2011/02/20 00:17:03
    La
    +1
    Just because you think it's a peacekeeping mission doesn't mean someone expressly invited you over...and if they knew you were gonna tax them, I can guarantee you'd never get invited anywhere again.

    Jesus I can't even believe this thread exists. SH is full of Americans saying "TAXATION IS STEALING" and you think the govt has the right to money from OTHER COUNTRIES PEOPLE?
  • Jrogers La 2011/02/21 00:40:58
    Jrogers
    +1
    Good Point
  • santanasmooth 2011/02/19 13:35:43
    No
    santanasmooth
    +2
    First 905 we are there not because they want us there, two any ally we have that has us stationed would boot us out.
  • lawlerskates 2011/02/19 13:26:56
    No
    lawlerskates
    +2
    What a stupid idea. You make our country look so ignorant Trump.
  • JoeOPing 2011/02/19 13:12:31
    Yes
    JoeOPing
    They should pay us for thier security.. Let them pay the for their security not THE US.
  • Carlbo 2011/02/19 12:48:56
    Yes
    Carlbo
    +1
    I don't know whether Donald Trump is a dem or rep but he does approach a lot of issue in a common sense sort of way. There is no denying that he can run a business and all of his children are loved and love their Dad and this says a lot for any man. All of the countries we are in can afford to pay their share for our protection.
  • La Carlbo 2011/02/20 00:18:37
    La
    Are you serious? You have troops/military bases in 150 countries. PS that's about half of them. You really think they can all afford to pay you?
  • daya 2011/02/19 12:05:25
    Yes
    daya
    +2
    Definitely. Then we'd know who wants us there and who doesn't. Then we could bring our troops home where they belong.
  • La daya 2011/02/20 00:19:02
    La
    +1
    I don't think anyone wants you that bad...
  • daya La 2011/02/20 00:24:13
    daya
    +1
    Thanks, LA. My point exactly. And you would know, looking at it from the outside. I really value that perspective, because here we are fed the party line on almost all news outlets.
  • kehvan 2011/02/19 12:00:20
    No
    kehvan
    +2
    Well, the President, nor congress, can tax another nation. It's just not in their power to do so... But they sure could be charged a bill for the service.
  • Cliff 2011/02/19 10:57:26
    No
    Cliff
    +3
    How much should we charge them for an arm or a leg or the loss of a parent or spouse or son or daughter? I don't care how much freaking oil the have, they and 10 countries like them don't have enough to pay for that.
  • Richard 2011/02/19 08:47:56
    No
    Richard
    +3
    We save everything by just bringing them "all" home! Let the host nations provide for their own defense! It's ("AMERICA FIRST!") now people,..we've dine our share, we've paid our dues, we've been there for the World and now it's our turn,...these countries have to defend themselves just as we have for generations,...suck it World and grow a couple,...who's your Daddy, we used to be, times have changed so grab a weapon and stand your own watch! Israel's my only exception, that's "God's Country", so choose whom you will serve, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! (*Joshua 24:15: ),
  • Broddy 2011/02/19 08:22:34
    Yes
    Broddy
    Personally i would prefer we bring them "all" home , but with out that alternative yes other country's should pay for the defense America Provides .
  • santana... Broddy 2011/02/19 22:30:41
    santanasmooth
    +2
    What if they didn't ask for your defense. Or if you invaded them..also how many countries would let you station there if they new they had to pay?
  • Broddy santana... 2011/02/20 10:05:00
    Broddy
    Then we fall back to my first option .. Bring them Home .
  • santana... Broddy 2011/02/20 12:35:18
    santanasmooth
    +1
    i agree with you there
  • wcake 2011/02/19 07:54:01
    Yes
    wcake
    +1
    I am weary of Donald Trump... His idea is interesting... I really feel that America cannot be a World's policeman 100% of time, and be advantage of.. I still would like to see end of billions of Foreign Aids most of all. I would like to see more of over sea military come back to protect America.
  • Fef 2011/02/19 07:47:11
    No
    Fef
    +2
    How would we tax the poor countries that let our troops use their land as bases for American interests.

    Donald Trump sounds good, but he has not international experience and no military knowledge... Hmmmm just like our president.
  • wcake Fef 2011/02/19 08:04:39
    wcake
    I understand.. I am not really fan of Donald Trump... His idea is just interesting... You see, Our Hillary, State of Secretary just has given to Hamid Karzi 50 billions, who took all the advantage of having our troops taking care of his citizens while be bought a home with the billions from American Taxpayers! Hillary was doing to get Karzi to like us... knew about the billions being wasted away..
  • Fef wcake 2011/02/19 08:18:01
    Fef
    +1
    Afghanistan cannot pay us money back. They have less GDP than Tijuana, Mexico.
  • wcake Fef 2011/02/19 08:30:52
    wcake
    How will we stop having Karzi taking our money? They still take advantage of our tax payers in any form... Don't let Karzi fool you... I bet Karzi begs to have the troops stay little longer to get the money.., even could not pay back.. If we end the billion of Foreign Aids, then Harmid Karzi would not want our troops there, not getting anything from our money... hate us more.. say to world, We don't care about them... What is the solution to it? That is problem...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/18 16:01:13

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals