Pay for wars in advance?

[UtahBill]

IMO, the day Bush declared war on Iraq, he should have asked congress to suspend his tax cuts, and maybe enact tax increases.
I wonder what the impact would be if congress had to do just that, for every war. They would be between a rock and a hard place. They would have to ask if we want war enough to raise taxes until it is paid in full, a moving target for sure. We are finding out just how expensive Vietnam was/is as more and more veterans file claims to the Veterans Administration for war related illnesses. Subsequent wars will be even more expensive.

I think a constitutional amendment is in order....

or does the idea have any merit? if not, explanations/reasons please.

 

[MaggieD]

IMO, the day Bush declared war on Iraq, he should have asked congress to suspend his tax cuts, and maybe enact tax increases.
I wonder what the impact would be if congress had to do just that, for every war. They would be between a rock and a hard place. They would have to ask if we want war enough to raise taxes until it is paid in full, a moving target for sure. We are finding out just how expensive Vietnam was/is as more and more veterans file claims to the Veterans Administration for war related illnesses. Subsequent wars will be even more expensive.

I think a constitutional amendment is in order....

or does the idea have any merit? if not, explanations/reasons please.

Honestly? Nothing we do, absolutely nothing, is going to make any difference at all until Congress tops kickin' the damn can down the road and addresses entitlements.

 

[UtahBill]

Honestly? Nothing we do, absolutely nothing, is going to make any difference at all until Congress tops kickin' the damn can down the road and addresses entitlements.

Agree, we all need to participate in economic adjustments. But entitlements aren't killing and maiming many thousands of young people, leading to even more entitlements. And if we get involved in fewer wars, it might be easier to pay for existing entitlements. There is also the option of fighting our enemies using methods that expose fewer troops to danger, but that is another post idea.

 

[Taboon]

I wholeheartedly agree that taxes need to be adjusted to pay for war. Personally, I believe in a balanced budget so if additional expenditures are required for any program, a tax hike to pay for that program should be administered simultaneously. Excess spending only puts further burden on our future generations. The same can be said for tax reductions that don't have corresponding expense reductions.

 

[MaggieD]

I wholeheartedly agree that taxes need to be adjusted to pay for war. Personally, I believe in a balanced budget so if additional expenditures are required for any program, a tax hike to pay for that program should be administered simultaneously. Excess spending only puts further burden on our future generations. The same can be said for tax reductions that don't have corresponding expense reductions.

Darned shame Congress doesn't see it your way.

 

[Wiseone]

Wars should be paid for while taxes, people shouldn't be able to think war has no price for them simply because they aren't in the military. When someone says "I support the war" it should mean they support giving more of their money to the government to pay for that war.

Its called actually making a sacrifice, something which most Americans are unable to really do. To most Americans and pro-war supporters, they think all they have to do and all that's expected of them is to slap a "Support the Troops" bummer sticker on their car. Sorry to all the people I just insulted, but its the truth. If you really want to support the troops, support the war, etc then take action don't equate "I support the troops" to "I support the war."

Heck mirror a normal National Guard training schedule, volunteer at a USO or VFW or American Legion, etc any kind of veteran's group or organization which does something for the troops, for ONE weekend a month. How many of you could actually do that?

 

[Helvidius]

War is very unpredictable so it is difficult to say how much taxes should be raised and the U.S. government has a tendency to undervalue the cost of everything. I would hate to send our troops somewhere and end up being unable to properly fund them because Congress was concerned about their poll ratings for election day in November. However, I think making it more difficult to go to war could be a possible solution. I don't know what would be appropriate, but maybe an amendment concerning how many votes Congress and the President need to declare war, with the exception being when war has already been declared on the United States.

 

[jamesrage]

IMO, the day Bush declared war on Iraq, he should have asked congress to suspend his tax cuts, and maybe enact tax increases.
I wonder what the impact would be if congress had to do just that, for every war. They would be between a rock and a hard place. They would have to ask if we want war enough to raise taxes until it is paid in full, a moving target for sure. We are finding out just how expensive Vietnam was/is as more and more veterans file claims to the Veterans Administration for war related illnesses. Subsequent wars will be even more expensive.

I think a constitutional amendment is in order....

or does the idea have any merit? if not, explanations/reasons please.

I think the clowns in office would try to find a way to subvert it just like they do with other constitutional amendments. They would use the extra taxes to try to fund socialized medicine, give it away to other countries in the form of foreign aid or something useless. They would probably figure that if we are paying extra taxes for the war then why not raise the taxes or not let the war time taxes expire.

They could mandate a rainy day war fund for future wars and they would borrow from it and bleed it dry.

 

[UtahBill]

War is very unpredictable so it is difficult to say how much taxes should be raised and the U.S. government has a tendency to undervalue the cost of everything. I would hate to send our troops somewhere and end up being unable to properly fund them because Congress was concerned about their poll ratings for election day in November. However, I think making it more difficult to go to war could be a possible solution. I don't know what would be appropriate, but maybe an amendment concerning how many votes Congress and the President need to declare war, with the exception being when war has already been declared on the United States.

Even then, there are much cheaper ways to fight wars without exposing so many troops to danger...

 

[samsmart]

Honestly? Nothing we do, absolutely nothing, is going to make any difference at all until Congress tops kickin' the damn can down the road and addresses entitlements.

Dealing with no-bid contracts, and government contracts in general, would be nice too.

 

[Helvidius]

[/B]
Even then, there are much cheaper ways to fight wars without exposing so many troops to danger...

That last part of my answer was in response to the U.S. going to war, not necessarily the costs associated with war (whether financially or with American lives). Looking back at U.S. wars in the 20th century and 21st century, it is difficult to pinpoint a war that truly threatened U.S. security. I don't believe WWI, Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Iraq were serious threats to the U.S.. That is why I think the only way to prevent the U.S. from deploying troops and getting involved in a war is to make the process more difficult. Of course if war has been declared on the U.S. then I don't think the process should be as difficult. How many countries have ever declared war on the U.S.? Not many, yet look at all the wars we have been in.

 

[majora$$hole]

That last part of my answer was in response to the U.S. going to war, not necessarily the costs associated with war (whether financially or with American lives). Looking back at U.S. wars in the 20th century and 21st century, it is difficult to pinpoint a war that truly threatened U.S. security. I don't believe WWI, Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Iraq were serious threats to the U.S.. That is why I think the only way to prevent the U.S. from deploying troops and getting involved in a war is to make the process more difficult. Of course if war has been declared on the U.S. then I don't think the process should be as difficult. How many countries have ever declared war on the U.S.? Not many, yet look at all the wars we have been in.

you hit the nail on the head. maybe we should have better reasons to send our young soldiers to die than to put a pipeline through some country so exon, bell aeronautics, halliburton ect... can make record quarter profits.

 

[UtahBill]

you hit the nail on the head. maybe we should have better reasons to send our young soldiers to die than to put a pipeline through some country so exon, bell aeronautics, halliburton ect... can make record quarter profits.

IMO, we should all pay much more for our gasoline, and dye it red to remind us that it is the blood of our children helping to keep the price so low...