Are Americans willing to pay the cost of war?

[Bfgrn]

The Cost Of War
Bruce Bartlett, 11.26.09, 12:01 AM EST

Are Americans willing to pay it?

In recent years, Republicans have been characterized by two principal positions: They like starting wars and don't like paying for them. George W. Bush initiated two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but adamantly refused to pay for either of them by cutting non-military spending or raising taxes. Indeed, at his behest, Congress actually cut taxes and established a massive new entitlement program, Medicare Part D.

Bush's actions were unprecedented. During every previous major war in American history, presidents demanded sacrifices from rich and poor alike. As Robert Hormats explains in his 2007 book, The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars, "During most of America's wars, parochial desires--such as tax breaks for favored groups or generous spending for influential constituencies--have been sacrificed to the greater good. The president and both parties in Congress have come together … to cut nonessential spending and increase taxes."

More... Forbes.com - Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is a historian who turned to writing about supply-side economics. He was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course not. If Americans were directly taxed for the wars started by their elected-officials there would be a massive revolt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oddly enough,in the entire budget national defense is the ONLY item where Congress is on solid Constitutional grounds.

 

[frazzledgear]

Of course not. If Americans were directly taxed for the wars started by their elected-officials there would be a massive revolt.

You must think Americans are silly enough to believe that our enemy -who declared war on us years before 9/11 and we just ignored it until thousands were murdered at a time instead of a few at time -will just call it off as well. Oh sure, handing the enemy victory cannot possibly do anything but prove to them what nice fellows we are after all, right? It won't prove what Bin Laden told them all along -that this is exactly what the US would do because we just don't have what it takes for the long war THEY have declared and have repeatedly said is a fight to the death. Ours or theirs. Does anyone with a brain really have to wonder which outcome would be cheaper for us?

Our enemy has made sure our options with how to deal with them are very few. It is our death or theirs and they mean it. If we choose to hand them victory here and walk away, it will NOT change their declaration to destroy us no matter how long it takes and no matter how much it may cost them in lives and resources -because unlike us, time is not an issue and they pride themselves on having qualities they believe the US lacks but are necessary for victory. Bin Laden has repeatedly said walking away is exactly what the US would do because it hasn't the stomach for a long war and is unwilling to fight to defend what is theirs.

Where we DO have plenty of options is with ending and REVERSING this nonstop wet dream spending spree Democrats have indulged in for nearly a full year doing all they can to expand the power of government - which can only happen at the expense of our freedoms and liberties. They quadrupled our budget deficit in a matter of MONTHS -not the war -insuring the government can lay claim to as much of OUR money as it wants because it earmarked that money for social programs the majority didn't want in the first place -and have now firmly set our feet on the path of bankruptcy. If we DO go bankrupt -it won't be because of Afghanistan. It will be because of Democrats and Obama who CHOSE to do whatever it took to insure we would go bankrupt. And did not happen by accident.


Osama Bin Laden - Fatwa- Background and Declaration of War on America

Paul Lafargue: The Bankruptcy of Capitalism

Dr. Sanity: THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF TODAY'S LEFT

 

[EriktheRed]

Are Americans willing to pay the cost of war?

Well, apparently "real Americans" aren't. It's that "personal responsibility" thing, y'know...

 

[rightwinger]

Of course not. If Americans were directly taxed for the wars started by their elected-officials there would be a massive revolt.

Hell yea

You couldn't get a decent war off the ground if people realized they cost money

 

[Claudette]

Our tax dollars cover everything the Congress spends money on. The Congress is authorizing dollars for the war, tax dollars. Now want another tax??? Just the tip of the iceburg.. These clowns will be taxing us to death with crap and trade, climate change, the green agenda, healthcare and now an additioinal tax on the war. Oh yeah. CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

Our tax dollars cover everything the Congress spends money on. The Congress is authorizing dollars for the war, tax dollars. Now want another tax??? Just the tip of the iceburg.. These clowns will be taxing us to death with crap and trade, climate change, the green agenda, healthcare and now an additioinal tax on the war. Oh yeah. CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!!!!

No Claudette, the "change" that is unbelievable is Bush starting two wars with NO way or intent to pay for them...

It is GROSS incompetence...

 

[Claudette]

Bf your right. Bush did start it all.

That was then and this is now. BO is the President and he is pursuing the RIGHT war in Afg or so he says. Blaming Bush sounds great but how long can you blame a President who is out of power???? Comes a time when the president NOW has to take the blame for whats going on NOW.

BO could have pulled all the troops out of everywhere when he came to power but didn't. Wonder why???

 

[Liability]

The Cost Of War
Bruce Bartlett, 11.26.09, 12:01 AM EST

Are Americans willing to pay it?

In recent years, Republicans have been characterized by two principal positions: They like starting wars and don't like paying for them. George W. Bush initiated two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but adamantly refused to pay for either of them by cutting non-military spending or raising taxes. Indeed, at his behest, Congress actually cut taxes and established a massive new entitlement program, Medicare Part D.

Bush's actions were unprecedented. During every previous major war in American history, presidents demanded sacrifices from rich and poor alike. As Robert Hormats explains in his 2007 book, The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars, "During most of America's wars, parochial desires--such as tax breaks for favored groups or generous spending for influential constituencies--have been sacrificed to the greater good. The president and both parties in Congress have come together … to cut nonessential spending and increase taxes."

More... Forbes.com - Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is a historian who turned to writing about supply-side economics. He was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.

The quoted piece has, as its thesis, two major premises:

1. "[Republicans] like starting wars."

and

2. "[Republicans] don't like paying for [the wars they allegedly 'start']."

Both major premises are false.

This means the quoted piece is quite worthless.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bf your right. Bush did start it all.

That was then and this is now. BO is the President and he is pursuing the RIGHT war in Afg or so he says. Blaming Bush sounds great but how long can you blame a President who is out of power???? Comes a time when the president NOW has to take the blame for whats going on NOW.

BO could have pulled all the troops out of everywhere when he came to power but didn't. Wonder why???

What's going on NOW, the wars are not payed for...President Obama and the Democrats are doing the responsible thing...proposing a way to PAY for the wars...

 

[Bfgrn]

The Cost Of War
Bruce Bartlett, 11.26.09, 12:01 AM EST

Are Americans willing to pay it?

In recent years, Republicans have been characterized by two principal positions: They like starting wars and don't like paying for them. George W. Bush initiated two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but adamantly refused to pay for either of them by cutting non-military spending or raising taxes. Indeed, at his behest, Congress actually cut taxes and established a massive new entitlement program, Medicare Part D.

Bush's actions were unprecedented. During every previous major war in American history, presidents demanded sacrifices from rich and poor alike. As Robert Hormats explains in his 2007 book, The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars, "During most of America's wars, parochial desires--such as tax breaks for favored groups or generous spending for influential constituencies--have been sacrificed to the greater good. The president and both parties in Congress have come together … to cut nonessential spending and increase taxes."

More... Forbes.com - Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is a historian who turned to writing about supply-side economics. He was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.

The quoted piece has, as its thesis, two major premises:

1. "[Republicans] like starting wars."

and

2. "[Republicans] don't like paying for [the wars they allegedly 'start']."

Both major premises are false.

This means the quoted piece is quite worthless.

Other than Ron Paul, WHO is the Robert Alphonso Taft of today's GOP "war & torture" party?

WHAT Republican Senator or Congressman proposed a way to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Oh THAT'S right...

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
Richard Perle, chair
The Pentagon's Defense Policy Board
July 11, 2002

"The likely economic effects [of a war in Iraq] would be relatively small.... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
Lawrence Lindsey
White House economic adviser
September 16, 2002

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
Kenneth Pollack
former director for Persian Gulf affairs
National Security Council
September 2002

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
Glenn Hubbard
White House economic adviser
October 4, 2002

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."
Ari Fleischer
White House press secretary
February 18, 2003

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
March 27, 2003

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense
testifying before the defense subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee
March 27, 2003

"The United States is very committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
Mitchell Daniels, director
White House Office of Management and Budget
April 21, 2003

"The allies [have contributed] $14 billion in direct aid."
Dick Cheney
vice presidential debate with
Democratic candidate John Edwards
October 5, 2004

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The better question is: Will Democrats ever root for American Military to win again?

In 2004 John Kerry (Has he signed the Form 180 like he promised?) was using US losses as a CAMPAIGN ISSUE!

We lost almost as many men in a single engagement in Africa against the Vichy French as we did in the entire Iraq War!

Can you imaging the field day Democrats would have had campaigning against the 19,200 men killed at the Battle of the Bulge?!

 

[Liability]

The Cost Of War
Bruce Bartlett, 11.26.09, 12:01 AM EST

Are Americans willing to pay it?

In recent years, Republicans have been characterized by two principal positions: They like starting wars and don't like paying for them. George W. Bush initiated two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but adamantly refused to pay for either of them by cutting non-military spending or raising taxes. Indeed, at his behest, Congress actually cut taxes and established a massive new entitlement program, Medicare Part D.

Bush's actions were unprecedented. During every previous major war in American history, presidents demanded sacrifices from rich and poor alike. As Robert Hormats explains in his 2007 book, The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars, "During most of America's wars, parochial desires--such as tax breaks for favored groups or generous spending for influential constituencies--have been sacrificed to the greater good. The president and both parties in Congress have come together … to cut nonessential spending and increase taxes."

More... Forbes.com - Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is a historian who turned to writing about supply-side economics. He was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.

The quoted piece has, as its thesis, two major premises:

1. "[Republicans] like starting wars."

and

2. "[Republicans] don't like paying for [the wars they allegedly 'start']."

Both major premises are false.

This means the quoted piece is quite worthless.

Other than Ron Paul, WHO is the Robert Alphonso Taft of today's GOP "war & torture" party?

WHAT Republican Senator or Congressman proposed a way to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Oh THAT'S right...

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
Richard Perle, chair
The Pentagon's Defense Policy Board
July 11, 2002

"The likely economic effects [of a war in Iraq] would be relatively small.... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
Lawrence Lindsey
White House economic adviser
September 16, 2002

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
Kenneth Pollack
former director for Persian Gulf affairs
National Security Council
September 2002

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
Glenn Hubbard
White House economic adviser
October 4, 2002

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."
Ari Fleischer
White House press secretary
February 18, 2003

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
March 27, 2003

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense
testifying before the defense subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee
March 27, 2003

"The United States is very committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
Mitchell Daniels, director
White House Office of Management and Budget
April 21, 2003

"The allies [have contributed] $14 billion in direct aid."
Dick Cheney
vice presidential debate with
Democratic candidate John Edwards
October 5, 2004

Republicans do not "like" "starting wars." What a completely imbecilic thing to say. It takes a truly stupid person to quote that baseless opinion as being something worthwhile.

And nobody actually "likes" paying for war. But as a rule, it is liberal Democratics who object to paying for wars. They see it as objectionable because they prefer to spend the money entrusted to them on socialist programs, instead.

 

[Navy1960]

An emotional appeal went out to citizens by means of advertising. Even though the bonds offered a rate of return below the market value, it represented a moral and financial stake in the war effort. The advertisements started with radio and newspapers, then later added magazines to reach the masses. The bond campaign was unique in that both the government, as well as private companies, created the advertisements.

Those who contributed advertising space felt they were doing even more for the war effort; then there were organizations that made up their own war bond advertisements to reflect their patriotism. The government recruited New York’s best advertising agencies, famous entertainers, and even used familiar comic strip characters to further their appeal to America. In their advertisements, the New York Stock Exchange urged purchasers not to cash in their bonds. More than a quarter of a billion dollars worth of advertising was donated during the first three years of the National Defense Savings Program. Massive advertising campagins used any means of media possible, and the campaign was a huge success. Word spread quickly; polls indicated after only one month that 90 percent of those responding were aware of war bonds. Bonds became the ideal channel for those on the home front to contribute to the national defense.

Bond rallies were held throughout the country with famous celebrities, usually Hollywood film stars, to enhance the advertising's effectiveness. Free movie days were held in theaters nationwide with a bond purchase as the admission. Such popular Hollywood stars as Greer Garson, Bette Davis and Rita Hayworth completed seven tours in more than 300 cities and towns to promote war bonds. The "Stars Over America" bond blitz, in which 337 stars took part, surpassed its quota and netted $838,540,000 worth of bonds.

U.S. War Bonds


I see nothing wrong with this nation supporting our efforts overseas in both moral and FINANCIAL terms and the reason why I put the war bonds example up there, is for a while now, I've thought that would be a good way to offset some of the expense of those efforts. One more thing of note here, and this applies to any Administration not just this one, rather than just talk of paying for the war, perhaps if bonds were sold and an appeal was made to the public for such efforts for troops deployed overseas then they might find it not as hard as they may think, one more thing too, if someone has an issue with the troops deployed overseas for whatever the reason, then by selling bonds they do not have to buy them.

 

[Bfgrn]

The better question is: Will Democrats ever root for American Military to win again?

In 2004 John Kerry (Has he signed the Form 180 like he promised?) was using US losses as a CAMPAIGN ISSUE!

We lost almost as many men in a single engagement in Africa against the Vichy French as we did in the entire Iraq War!

Can you imaging the field day Democrats would have had campaigning against the 19,200 men killed at the Battle of the Bulge?!

Tell that to their Gold Star mothers...

You're a real scum bag Frank...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The better question is: Will Democrats ever root for American Military to win again?

In 2004 John Kerry (Has he signed the Form 180 like he promised?) was using US losses as a CAMPAIGN ISSUE!

We lost almost as many men in a single engagement in Africa against the Vichy French as we did in the entire Iraq War!

Can you imaging the field day Democrats would have had campaigning against the 19,200 men killed at the Battle of the Bulge?!

Tell that to their Gold Star mothers...

You're a real scum bag Frank...

Why don't you show everyone your tattoo of Mooky Al Sadr?

On bfgrn's left pec

 

[Bfgrn]

The better question is: Will Democrats ever root for American Military to win again?

In 2004 John Kerry (Has he signed the Form 180 like he promised?) was using US losses as a CAMPAIGN ISSUE!

We lost almost as many men in a single engagement in Africa against the Vichy French as we did in the entire Iraq War!

Can you imaging the field day Democrats would have had campaigning against the 19,200 men killed at the Battle of the Bulge?!

Tell that to their Gold Star mothers...

You're a real scum bag Frank...

Why don't you show everyone your tattoo of Mooky Al Sadr?

Hey Frank, WWII was STARTED by the Nazis...Iraq was STARTED by Bush...why don't you select an avatar that fits your hypocritical ignorance?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[rdean]

Of course not. If Americans were directly taxed for the wars started by their elected-officials there would be a massive revolt.

You must think Americans are silly enough to believe that our enemy -who declared war on us years before 9/11 and we just ignored it until thousands were murdered at a time instead of a few at time -will just call it off as well. Oh sure, handing the enemy victory cannot possibly do anything but prove to them what nice fellows we are after all, right? It won't prove what Bin Laden told them all along -that this is exactly what the US would do because we just don't have what it takes for the long war THEY have declared and have repeatedly said is a fight to the death. Ours or theirs. Does anyone with a brain really have to wonder which outcome would be cheaper for us?

Our enemy has made sure our options with how to deal with them are very few. It is our death or theirs and they mean it. If we choose to hand them victory here and walk away, it will NOT change their declaration to destroy us no matter how long it takes and no matter how much it may cost them in lives and resources -because unlike us, time is not an issue and they pride themselves on having qualities they believe the US lacks but are necessary for victory. Bin Laden has repeatedly said walking away is exactly what the US would do because it hasn't the stomach for a long war and is unwilling to fight to defend what is theirs.

Where we DO have plenty of options is with ending and REVERSING this nonstop wet dream spending spree Democrats have indulged in for nearly a full year doing all they can to expand the power of government - which can only happen at the expense of our freedoms and liberties. They quadrupled our budget deficit in a matter of MONTHS -not the war -insuring the government can lay claim to as much of OUR money as it wants because it earmarked that money for social programs the majority didn't want in the first place -and have now firmly set our feet on the path of bankruptcy. If we DO go bankrupt -it won't be because of Afghanistan. It will be because of Democrats and Obama who CHOSE to do whatever it took to insure we would go bankrupt. And did not happen by accident.


Osama Bin Laden - Fatwa- Background and Declaration of War on America

Paul Lafargue: The Bankruptcy of Capitalism

Dr. Sanity: THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF TODAY'S LEFT

Not the brightest bulb in the closet. We already handed the extreme Islamics a victory when the Republicans supported the new right wing Iraqi constitution that mandates all legislation be based on Islam and declares "Islam" as the "national religion".

Where do you think that leaves the more than a million Iraqi Christians and people who used to live there who belong to other faiths. "Used to live there" being the operative words. The current estimate leaves the Christian population in Iraq at less than 400,000.

Do a little research and find out what happened to the other million. Perhaps come to a conclusion. Maybe one like, "If they wiped out there own Christian population, what do they think of us, a country more than 80% Christian?"