To all the war supporters

[Richard]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

[??????????]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

Coming from someone who bitches so much about how unfair taxes are this is a bit suprising coming from you.

[Joe Republic]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

Coming from someone who bitches so much about how unfair taxes are this is a bit suprising coming from you.

How else is the war going to be paid for?  Surely you get his point.

[bgwah]

The Republicans know how.

Democrats will raise taxes to pay for the GOP's fiscal irresponsibility.

The GOP will villanize the Democrats for raising taxes.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The Republicans know how.

Democrats will raise taxes to pay for the GOP's fiscal irresponsibility.

The GOP will villanize the Democrats for raising taxes.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Its just money

[CultureKing]

The Republicans know how.

Democrats will raise taxes to pay for the GOP's fiscal irresponsibility.

The GOP will villanize the Democrats for raising taxes.

[Dr. Cynic]

Its just money

Money, Money, Money, Money, Money!!!!!! Everybody's gotta price!!!! Everybody's gonna pay!!!!

[Richard]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

Coming from someone who bitches so much about how unfair taxes are this is a bit suprising coming from you.

Oh I ain't paying for it, and I don't want American citizenship at this point.  If I was American though, and support the war, you logically need to support the taxes for that war.  You can't support the war and not the taxes, because then your children will pay for it.

[Padfoot]

The Republicans know how.

Democrats will raise taxes to pay for the GOP's fiscal irresponsibility.

The GOP will villanize the Democrats for raising taxes.

[The Duke]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

Historically, most wars have been funded primarily through bonds, not taxes.  Ever hear of war bonds?

Bonds are a better way to finance wars because war is a large expense condensed into a short period of time.  This is similar to the idea that you borrow money to buy a house instead of paying cash for it, when governments make one time expenditures, they tend to pay for it with bonds so as to spread the cost over time instead of having to pay for the war all at once.

[nlm]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

Historically, most wars have been funded primarily through bonds, not taxes.  Ever hear of war bonds?

Bonds are a better way to finance wars because war is a large expense condensed into a short period of time.  This is similar to the idea that you borrow money to buy a house instead of paying cash for it, when governments make one time expenditures, they tend to pay for it with bonds so as to spread the cost over time instead of having to pay for the war all at once.

Yeah - China finances so much of what Bush has done, why not allow them to pay for the war as well.

[ilikeverin]

Well, taxes need to be raised anyway (to cut down the deficit), and your number is fallacious (the taxation would and should be progressive in nature, while your number is assuming the taxes would be raised a flat amount on everyone... not even a flat percentage on everyone!), so whatever.  I'm not paying taxes yet, anyway

[The Duke]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

Historically, most wars have been funded primarily through bonds, not taxes.  Ever hear of war bonds?

Bonds are a better way to finance wars because war is a large expense condensed into a short period of time.  This is similar to the idea that you borrow money to buy a house instead of paying cash for it, when governments make one time expenditures, they tend to pay for it with bonds so as to spread the cost over time instead of having to pay for the war all at once.

Yeah - China finances so much of what Bush has done, why not allow them to pay for the war as well.

Chinese investment in US bonds is good for both coutnries.  It allows the Chinese to sustain their currency peg to the dollar (Good for them), the currency peg ensures a more stable balance of trade (Good for both), allows us to offset our trade deficit by making us a capital importer (Good for us), and the additional foreign investment in dollar assets boosts the value of the dollar (Good for us again).

Apart from your broadside against foreign investment in American assets, do you have a substantive, economic objection to the point that wars are best funded through bonds rather than taxes?

[nlm]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

Historically, most wars have been funded primarily through bonds, not taxes.  Ever hear of war bonds?

Bonds are a better way to finance wars because war is a large expense condensed into a short period of time.  This is similar to the idea that you borrow money to buy a house instead of paying cash for it, when governments make one time expenditures, they tend to pay for it with bonds so as to spread the cost over time instead of having to pay for the war all at once.

Yeah - China finances so much of what Bush has done, why not allow them to pay for the war as well.

Chinese investment in US bonds is good for both coutnries.  It allows the Chinese to sustain their currency peg to the dollar (Good for them), the currency peg ensures a more stable balance of trade (Good for both), allows us to offset our trade deficit by making us a capital importer (Good for us), and the additional foreign investment in dollar assets boosts the value of the dollar (Good for us again).

Apart from your broadside against foreign investment in American assets, do you have a substantive, economic objection to the point that wars are best funded through bonds rather than taxes?

The important question here is - are we buying something worth having, or are we just running up debt to China and other foriegn entities. I would argue we are not buying something worth having in Iraq. Running up debt to fund something not worth having is enormously foolish.

Your overly generic presentation of foriegn investment lack quite a bit as well. Of course a certain amount of foriegn investment in the US is a good thing. However, debt at the levels we currently are running (and increasing) is not a good thing. Balance in all things - that's a concept that is being missed badly by our current government.

[CPT MikeyMike]

This sounds weird coming from a Soldier but...

Defense spending needs to be cut.

There is SOOOOOO much excess fat in the defense department that could be cut and make if more effecient. Problem is the Defense Department is a public sector job and they don't care about being bussiness efficent.

Believe it or not, Donald Rumsfield wanted to take a more bussiness approach to the Defense Department until 9/11 happened.

[nlm]

This sounds weird coming from a Soldier but...

Defense spending needs to be cut.

There is SOOOOOO much excess fat in the defense department that could be cut and make if more effecient. Problem is the Defense Department is a public sector job and they don't care about being bussiness efficent.

Believe it or not, Donald Rumsfield wanted to take a more bussiness approach to the Defense Department until 9/11 happened.

You are so correct.

The problem is that this country is filled with people that think any defense spending is good spending. The other problem is the anatomy of defense contract. The first thing that happens when a new contract gets let is for the manufacturing of the product to get spread across as many congrsssional districts as possible.

[CPT MikeyMike]

I would agrue that this plagues a lot of government areas. Defense spending is one of the big ones however (as you said) it's too sensitive to have an audit on it.

My idea would be to cut the budget by 10% right away. It would eliminate a lot of the government waster in the department such as the plasma tv's in the delivery rooms at one post hospital or the GS-12 civilians that do not do any work and collect a pay check and other little waste projects.

I figure that would cut 15-20% of the spending right there. However Soldiers (enlisted ones especially) are way underpaid. Pay raises and cost of living expenses need to be increased for Soldeirs across the board. My impression is that Soliders currently collect extra dollars by getting married at a wicked young age and pop out 3 or 4 babies before they turn 21.

[MODU]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

There is no need for a tax increase to fund the war.  We waste more money on a yearly basis on welfare programs than in the two wars PLUS all other military actions we are currently involved in across the world.  Fix/End the welfare waste, and we can save money while still paying for the military.

[Joe Republic]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

There is no need for a tax increase to fund the war.  We waste more money on a yearly basis on welfare programs than in the two wars PLUS all other military actions we are currently involved in across the world.  Fix/End the welfare waste, and we can save money while still paying for the military.

That of course depends on which you consider to actually be a waste of money; the war or the welfare state.

[MODU]

That of course depends on which you consider to actually be a waste of money; the war or the welfare state.

Not to get into major specifics, but there is too much waste/fraud occuring within social security, medicare, etc.  Fix those issues, and you'll find a lot of "new" money.

[nlm]

That of course depends on which you consider to actually be a waste of money; the war or the welfare state.

Not to get into major specifics, but there is too much waste/fraud occuring within social security, medicare, etc.  Fix those issues, and you'll find a lot of "new" money.

There seems to be qiute a bit of waste and fraud being reported about the financing of the Iraq war as well. Heck - some would argue that every dollar we put into Iraq at this point is a waste. That's not to say waste amd fraud shouldn't be addressed at every level of government spending - it should be.

[The Duke]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

Historically, most wars have been funded primarily through bonds, not taxes.  Ever hear of war bonds?

Bonds are a better way to finance wars because war is a large expense condensed into a short period of time.  This is similar to the idea that you borrow money to buy a house instead of paying cash for it, when governments make one time expenditures, they tend to pay for it with bonds so as to spread the cost over time instead of having to pay for the war all at once.

Yeah - China finances so much of what Bush has done, why not allow them to pay for the war as well.

Chinese investment in US bonds is good for both coutnries.  It allows the Chinese to sustain their currency peg to the dollar (Good for them), the currency peg ensures a more stable balance of trade (Good for both), allows us to offset our trade deficit by making us a capital importer (Good for us), and the additional foreign investment in dollar assets boosts the value of the dollar (Good for us again).

Apart from your broadside against foreign investment in American assets, do you have a substantive, economic objection to the point that wars are best funded through bonds rather than taxes?

The important question here is - are we buying something worth having, or are we just running up debt to China and other foriegn entities. I would argue we are not buying something worth having in Iraq. Running up debt to fund something not worth having is enormously foolish.

Your overly generic presentation of foriegn investment lack quite a bit as well. Of course a certain amount of foriegn investment in the US is a good thing. However, debt at the levels we currently are running (and increasing) is not a good thing. Balance in all things - that's a concept that is being missed badly by our current government.

You didn't say that having to large a debt was a bad thing in your post.  You said it was bad to have China buying US bonds.  So that's what I responded to.

And as for the size of our national debt, it is actually not much larger than that of many industrialized countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

[nlm]

So the war is expensive.  As much as I hate taxes, which is a lot, you have to pay for it.  It isn't free.  Are you OK with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it?  $4,000 per family last time I heard is what it is costing.  So yeah.  Pay up.

Historically, most wars have been funded primarily through bonds, not taxes.  Ever hear of war bonds?

Bonds are a better way to finance wars because war is a large expense condensed into a short period of time.  This is similar to the idea that you borrow money to buy a house instead of paying cash for it, when governments make one time expenditures, they tend to pay for it with bonds so as to spread the cost over time instead of having to pay for the war all at once.

Yeah - China finances so much of what Bush has done, why not allow them to pay for the war as well.

Chinese investment in US bonds is good for both coutnries.  It allows the Chinese to sustain their currency peg to the dollar (Good for them), the currency peg ensures a more stable balance of trade (Good for both), allows us to offset our trade deficit by making us a capital importer (Good for us), and the additional foreign investment in dollar assets boosts the value of the dollar (Good for us again).

Apart from your broadside against foreign investment in American assets, do you have a substantive, economic objection to the point that wars are best funded through bonds rather than taxes?

The important question here is - are we buying something worth having, or are we just running up debt to China and other foriegn entities. I would argue we are not buying something worth having in Iraq. Running up debt to fund something not worth having is enormously foolish.

Your overly generic presentation of foriegn investment lack quite a bit as well. Of course a certain amount of foriegn investment in the US is a good thing. However, debt at the levels we currently are running (and increasing) is not a good thing. Balance in all things - that's a concept that is being missed badly by our current government.

You didn't say that having to large a debt was a bad thing in your post.  You said it was bad to have China buying US bonds.  So that's what I responded to.

And as for the size of our national debt, it is actually not much larger than that of many industrialized countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Check yourself - I didn't say "it was bad to have China buying US bonds" - you infered what you wanted to in order to be a smart-ass and combative. Christ - you quoted the whole conversation.

Not that I wasn't being a smart ass as well - but I'm at least not going to bend your words to try and justify it or pretend I wasn't being one - the comment I responed to warranted it in my book. Perhaps my comment warrented it in yours - great. Just don't make up sh*t and claim I said it laddy.

[The Duke]

Check yourself - I didn't say "it was bad to have China buying US bonds" - you infered what you wanted to in order to be a smart-ass and combative. Christ - you quoted the whole conversation.

Not that I wasn't being a smart ass as well - but I'm at least not going to bend your words to try and justify it or pretend I wasn't being one - the comment I responed to warranted it in my book. Perhaps my comment warrented it in yours - great. Just don't make up sh*t and claim I said it laddy.

Your explaination that you were not criticizing foreign ownership of debt instruments, but rather the size of our debt makes no sense.  If that were true, you would not have explicitily mentioned China.  Further, it makes no sense because (as my link shows) US debt levels are not at all unusual for an industrialized economy.

Your revised story makes no more economic or logical sense than your original story did.