Shouldn't we raise taxes to pay for the war?

momof2inca · 04-12-2008, 04:28 PM

from a National Journal article by Ronald Brownstein:

Quote:

Iraq is the first major war that this country has fought by transferring the entire cost to future generations, including the generation fighting the war, through government debt. President Bush has never proposed raising taxes to pay for the conflict. Instead, he has presided over an increase in domestic spending and substantially cut taxes in 2003, an unprecedented step during wartime. "In every other major war ... we raised taxes," says Robert Hormats, author of The Price of Liberty, an authoritative and insightful recent book on how America has financed its wars. "This is the first major war where we have cut taxes ... and it is the first major war where we have increased domestic ... spending rather than cut it. As a result, the entire incremental cost of the war has been borrowed."

That cost is formidable. The Congressional Budget Office calculates that the Iraq war has already cost $600 billion. That bill is rising by $10.3 billion per month. Because all of that money has been borrowed, the interest on that additional debt might swell the price tag by another $600 billion over the next decade, the House Budget Committee estimates...
...
New taxes paid for one-quarter of the costs of the Civil War, for one-third of World War I's costs, and for nearly half of World War II's. Even when confronted with the unprecedented expense of those titanic wars, our leaders "had a very keen sense of not imposing inordinate burdens on posterity," says Hormats, now a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs

Brownstein: The bottom line on Iraq - National Journal - MSNBC.com

How will our children and grandchildren begin to pay this off, assuming it ever ends over the next 100 years? Something to ponder as the tax rebates start rolling in next month, I guess.

saransay · 04-12-2008, 04:40 PM

During WWII we taxed our upper income at 92 percent. Imagine that. The Republicans CUT TAXES on the upper income bracket during the war. How patriotic.

mafool · 04-12-2008, 04:53 PM

Of course we should raise taxes to pay for the war. Otherwise, our grandchildren will be paying for the actions of the government we elected. But to do so would be "unpopular." And that might lead to more scrutiny. There is no draft, no tax increase, so no widespread, personal awareness of the costs of this enterprise.

VeryHappy · 04-12-2008, 04:58 PM

One of my hobbies is collecting and reading women's magazines from World War II. The amount of shared sacrifice that was requested, and that was given, was astounding. Rationing, food coupons, buying war bonds, and then more war bonds, shortages of every type of goods -- from cars to towels -- sending one's sons and husbands off so we could live in freedom and beat the bad guys -- that was one hell of a war that we really, truly believed in and sacrificed for. No, I don't want all those sacrifices -- but that's because I don't believe in this war.

StitchInTime · 04-12-2008, 05:05 PM

Ans: No.

Alternative: Cut wasteful programs starting with:

15% across the board budget cuts...most departments won't even feel it
Dept of Defense: all spending in South Korea...they don't want us there anyway...removal of bases from Europe. European countries need to raise their level of defense spending as we lower ours. We're currently subsidizing their defense.
Eliminate Dept of Education: $68 billion
Federal Crop subsidies: $10 billion
Stop rebuilding of New Orleans and any sea-coast areas : $127 billion

Other ideas:

Privatize Social Security...it's a pyramid scheme.
Allow drilling in ANWR...$168 billion in tax revenues...drilling off of all coastal areas while we're at it.

poetsheart · 04-12-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Instead, he has presided over an increase in domestic spending and substantially cut taxes in 2003, an unprecedented step during wartime.

That still staggers the imagination, doesn't it? I will never forgive this president. Never.

Stellena · 04-12-2008, 05:19 PM

"There is no draft, no tax increase, so no widespread, personal awareness of the costs of this enterprise"

Really? What about the destruction in Iraq and to our troops and their families?

NO TAX INCREASE, THANK YOU!

Indict the people responsible, try them as war criminals, and have them pay the debt.

VeryHappy · 04-12-2008, 05:21 PM

Poetsheart: The Worst President. Ever.

kluge · 04-12-2008, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Alternative: Cut wasteful programs starting with:

* 15% across the board budget cuts...most departments won't even feel it

I love it when people make grand pronouncements like this, with absolutely no clue as to what they're talking about. Hmm, let's see, biggest part of the budget? Military. Hmmm. Then it's Social Security. Then Medicare. Then it's interest on the debt run up by Reagan, Bush and Bush - try cutting your payments on that, eh? In fact, we could probably balance the budget if we didn't have to make those interest payments.

Seriously, pie in the sky "cut spending on everything that doesn't immediately benefit me" and cut my taxes demagoguery is what got us here.

hops_scout · 04-12-2008, 08:38 PM

I'll tell you what-- how bout the government quit paying people to NOT work.. That'd save a ton of money right there!

mafool · 04-12-2008, 09:56 PM

Stellena,
You write:

Quote:

What about the destruction in Iraq and to our troops and their families?

We are in agreement on this point. Sorry I wasn't more direct. My point is that "others," those you describe, are the only ones bearing the burden of this incredibly stupid enterprise. The average American is not impacted. If we actually had to bear the cost of this debacle, more people would be objecting to the cost in "treasure" even if they continue to ignore the other costs, including the lives of so many.

To the original question though, I think we must figure out how to pay for this disaster. I didn't vote for the crew in the white house, but, as Bush was elected (sort of, the first time and for real the second time) by the voters of this country, we bear a responsibility to pay for the mess. Our kids and grandchildren do not.

StitchInTime · 04-12-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

(#9)

Quote:

Alternative: Cut wasteful programs starting with:

* 15% across the board budget cuts...most departments won't even feel it

I love it when people make grand pronouncements like this, with absolutely no clue as to what they're talking about...

Recent Increase in Government Spending: Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years:

Quote:

Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone...

Hmm....No 'fat' to be found there

Legal Precedence for across the board spending reductions: Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (1985)

Quote:

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (P.L. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1038) is popularly known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act after the names of its principal sponsors, and was designed to reduce the federal budget deficit. The law did so primarily by setting seemingly rigid deficit limits and authorizing mandatory, across-the-board spending reductions to reach them...

More Political Precedence: New York Times: HOUSE APPROVES A 1% BUDGET CUT ACROSS THE BOARD....and if my math is correct... Take this 1% multiply it 15 times results in a 15% across the board cut.
And as to a methodology: Heritage Foundation: How to Make Across-the-Board Budget Cuts Work

Demagogic retort in 5...4...3...2...1

ellemenope · 04-12-2008, 10:21 PM

>>How will our children and grandchildren begin to pay this off, assuming it ever ends over the next 100 years?<<

Cutting back on social security and medicare for us...that'll pay us back!

Stellena · 04-12-2008, 10:40 PM

"To the original question though, I think we must figure out how to pay for this disaster. I didn't vote for the crew in the white house, but, as Bush was elected (sort of, the first time and for real the second time) by the voters of this country, we bear a responsibility to pay for the mess. Our kids and grandchildren do not."

Totally agree Mafool!

Indict them like war criminals, just like at Nurumberg, and let them pay off the debt with their oil and other assets. Very obvious to me. They don't even need to serve prison time.

galoisien · 04-12-2008, 10:47 PM

Some things to be put in perspective:

The war (before the last budget session by Congress) constituted 25% of the deficit (not even the majority). The entire budget is 4.4 trillion -- over the course of the war, total budget spending for the nation has been 22 trillion.

The war has been costly, but it's been consuming about 2.7% of our budget these past five years.