TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Who Will Pay for Iraq and When?
Who Will Pay for Iraq and When?
While these companies {CLICK} makes billions in profits, we the people continue to pay a price in the silent tax "inflation" used to pay the interest the bank owes to Federal Reserve (which isn't Federal and hardly a Reserve), from the loans used to pay for the wars and unlimited spending of the government.
Seriously, we need a revolution to bring these people into account and reform their wasteful ways...
_____________________________________________________________
Who Will Pay for Iraq and When?
By Jonathan Coopersmith
Mr. Coopersmith teaches history at Texas A & M University and is a writer for the History News Service.
In all the heated words about the Iraq war, we've heard little or nothing about paying for it. Regardless of how you feel about the war, you must concede that it is going to cost us all dearly.
The Iraq war is consuming over $1.4 billion a week -- or $200 million a day. In the time it takes you to read this article, the American government will have spent $700,000 on the war. The war has cost $200 billion already. Economists have estimated the war's ultimate bill will be $1-2 trillion, which includes costs such as the hospitalization and long-term care of tens of thousands of wounded veterans, interest payments on the wartime debt and replacement of worn-out equipment.
The enormous expense of the Iraq war is no surprise: historically, wars cost money, lots of it. In the past, paying for wars has often provided the impetus for new and more efficient ways of taxing citizens. Lotteries, an essential source of income for 42 states today, helped pay for the Revolutionary War. The income tax first surfaced in the United States to pay the huge costs of the Civil War, although the Supreme Court declared the tax unconstitutional after the war.
Half a century later, in 1913, Congress passed an income tax. That progressive tax began at 1 percent for married couples making over $4,000 and rose to 7 percent on incomes over $500,000. To pay for World War I, the top rate rose to 77 percent on income over $2 million, although the number of people earning $2 million then was minuscule. To pay for World War II, Congress expanded the number of people paying income taxes from 4 to 42 million and increased the top rate to 91 percent. Excess-profits taxes brought in even more money, as did sales of savings bonds.
And those were "good" wars. Controversial wars, such as the Iraq war today, have been harder to fund. Lyndon Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon, failed to raise taxes sufficiently to pay for the Vietnam War, partly because of opposition to the war from liberals and others and to Johnson's war on poverty from conservatives. Neither left nor right wanted to fund what they considered as dangerously misguided government policies.
Consequently, growing deficits and cuts to politically vulnerable parts of the federal budget marked attempts by Johnson and Nixon to pay for the war in Vietnam. Among the cuts were scientific and technical research that could have had long-term benefits; cutting such funding meant slower long-term growth. The deficits also helped spark an inflationary spiral that persisted through the 1970s. This inflation reduced the value of the dollar, a less direct but longer-lasting cost of the Vietnam war.
The most impressive wartime financing ever was by President Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, in the first Gulf War of 1990-91. The first President Bush and his advisers worked through diplomacy to persuade countries like Japan to pay almost all of America's immediate war costs.
In the case of Iraq, instead of raising taxes to pay for the war, the current Bush administration is cutting them, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit. The Bush administration has raised the ceiling on the national debt from $5.95 trillion in 2001 to $9.62 trillion in 2006, an increase of over 60 percent in five years. All this debt must eventually be repaid by taxing us, our children and our grandchildren.
Why this flight from financial reality? No politician likes to raise taxes. The Bush Administration has made cutting taxes a policy hallmark and has vigorously opposed any discussion of raising any taxes.
Before it invaded Iraq, the White House disavowed its treasury secretary, John Snow, who estimated the war would cost $100-200 billion. The administration argued that the war would cost only a few tens of billions of dollars, hardly enough to get excited about. Since then, the administration has funded the war through annual supplemental requests instead of regular budget appropriations, effectively hiding the war's cost.
For their part, Democrats have not tried to pay for the war by raising taxes for fear the Republicans will call them "tax-and-spend" liberals. Although this is a far more responsible policy than being a "borrow-and-spend" conservative, a platform of fiscal frugality will not win elections in today's polarized political climate. Nor, afraid of being accused of not supporting the troops, have Democrats attempted to challenge funding for the war.
Equally important, investors, including the Chinese government, are financing the war in Iraq by buying Treasury bonds. Foreign investors are not buying bonds because they agree with American foreign policy; they buy bonds as a good investment that will be repaid with interest -- by taxes on Americans for decades to come.
Both the Congress and the president deserve blame for not fulfilling their constitutional duty to find the funding for the Iraq war. But especially for an administration that uses historical events to justify its actions, it's sad that the president and his supporters have not learned one of the most important lessons of history: fiscal responsibility.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/31431.html
A revolution? 
I will pay.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LatinLover A revolution? |
| quote: |
| I will pay. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton A revolution is a movement that brings about a major change. Obviously, you want things to stay exactly as they are... |
dude this is not latin america or w.e you think we are. havent you learn anything.... these is a country that denounces revolution and holds on the ideals of evolution 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LatinLover Dude there are plenty of revolutions in Cuba, Venezuela.... all types of them i must say, economical, social etc. Thank god these revolutions have solved their problems. Lets all tell the american people to start one at home? dude this is not latin america or w.e you think we are. havent you learn anything.... these is a country that denounces revolution and holds on the ideals of evolution |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LatinLover Dude there are plenty of revolutions in Cuba, Venezuela.... all types of them i must say, economical, social etc. Thank god these revolutions have solved their problems. Lets all tell the american people to start one at home? dude this is not latin america or w.e you think we are. havent you learn anything.... these is a country that denounces revolution and holds on the ideals of evolution |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov lol Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War lol |
MLK A revolutionist? OMFG
Please dont keep embarrassing yourself close this thread man
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov lol Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War lol |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LatinLover MLK A revolutionist? OMFG Please dont keep embarrassing yourself close this thread man |
Wow, just wow..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LatinLover That was a revolution for our independence Since when has America turned to revolutions to solve our problems? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Are you fucking retarded? Does Civil Rights Movement ring a bell?? Wow, just wow.. |
Here's how we should pay for it:
| quote: |
| Top Democrats propose war surtax WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top House Democrats Tuesday proposed a "war surtax" to pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a plan quickly condemned by Republicans and opposed by the House leadership. The surtax would be "a percentage of your tax bill," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin. "And if you don't like the cost, then shut down the war." The measure -- sponsored by Obey, Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, and Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts -- would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill, while higher-income taxpayers would add 12 to 15 percent, Obey said. The House Democratic leadership made it clear Wednesday that they had not signed off on the measure. In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, House speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted President Bush for not asking Americans to sacrifice and "adding hundreds of billions of dollars in debt for future generations to repay." But Pelosi said she will not back the measure. "Some have suggested that shared sacrifice should take the form of a draft; others have suggested a surtax. Those who oppose a tax and the draft also should oppose the president's war," Pelosi said. "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax." A spokesman for the House Ways and Means committee, which handles all tax measures, told CNN "there's no expectation that this proposal will come before the committee." The proposal comes as the Bush administration requested an additional $190 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obey estimated the surtax would annually generate between $140 and $150 billion dollars which is equivalent to the annual cost of the war in Iraq. VideoWatch Obey say he will not give the White House a blank check" � "This is the first time in American history that when a president has taken a country to war and said 'by the way folks, we're going to have to sacrifice and the way to sacrifice is by cutting your taxes.'" Obey said. "It makes no sense." Speaking at a Capitol Hill press conference, McGovern said families of troops serving in Iraq would be exempt from the surtax, and that the tax was similar to ones imposed during War War II and the Vietnam War. The Republican leadership was quick to condemn the proposal. "Raiding every taxpayer's wallet for the purposes of playing politics with our national security amounts to one of the most irresponsible proposals I've seen in a long, long time," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement. "It's time for Democrats to support our troops and the strategy that has led them to make undeniable progress in Iraq." A Democratic leadership aide dismissed criticism from the GOP, saying, "Republicans are talking about something [surtax proposal] that's never going to see the light of day, but they're doing it at their own peril because the more they talk about the costs of war, the more Americans will listen." Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said he agreed "this generation ought to help pay for" the war but that there was no agreement on backing the bill. "One of the stories I just read said 'the Democrats propose,'" Hoyer said. "This is a proposal by Mr. Obey. Mr. Murtha and Mr. McGovern. This is not a party proposal." |
Relax, Latin. With the spineless Democrats on your side, you needn't worry one bit about defunding your cause and bringing our troops home. Pelosi, the ever spineless House Speaker, squashed any talk:
| quote: |
| All told, the Democratic proposal for an "Iraq tax" lasted about four hours. That�s roughly the amount of time from when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) gave life to the idea with his endorsement to when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) strangled it. "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax," Pelosi said in a statement issued this afternoon. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...2007-10-02.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LatinLover Im being serious dont embarrass yourself anymore. Civil Rights Movement was an evolution.... dude please i mean you cant be that ignorant to not recognize that. Saying that it was a revolutions is like saying 1+1=3 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Relax, Latin. With the spineless Democrats on your side, you needn't worry one bit about defunding your cause and bringing our troops home. Pelosi, the ever spineless House Speaker, squashed any talk: But I will say that funding for this war (or rather, sincere lack thereof) really does fall in line with the current Republican party mantra - create a fiscal debt on any given issue now and let someone else pay for it later. Of course that means that us and our children will have to pay for everything you Republicans have successfully thrown us into the debt hole for now, including funding for this war, but what else is new? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.