• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pay for wars in advance?

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
135
Reaction score
38
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
735
Reaction score
325
Location
Good ol' US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,731
Reaction score
16,428
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
735
Reaction score
325
Location
Good ol' US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
[/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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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...
 
Top Bottom