| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
CoolMtgGuy
3663 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2008 : 08:25:50 AM
|
question is related to the conservative belief in controlled spending and less taxation.
We have had two wars under way for many years now ... and they both will continue for years to come. It costs a ton of money to fund these wars. The current administration has never talled to the American people about the funding of these wars so people really disconnected from this aspect of our current wars.
What should the Amercian people be told about finding the money to pay for these two wars? |
|
Tsnyder
8256 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 09:45:51 AM
|
Two things...
First... I don't think we're engaged in two wars.
We are engaged in one war on two fronts. No big
deal... just the way I see it.
Second... the phrasing of your question doesn't really
lend itself to a clear cut response. I'm not even sure
what you mean by "What should the American people be told
about finding the money..."
I'm also not sure what you mean by "The current administration
has never tallied to the American people about the funding of
these wars..."
Are you saying the costs are not available? I don't think that's
true at all. Every dime had to be appropriated by Congress. It's
all public record. Democrat politicians toss the numbers around
at will.
If the people suffer from some kind of disconnect on this subject
it's because they don't care enough to look for the facts.
Tsnyder |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3663 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 10:01:02 AM
|
A thoughtful response as always and I do appreciate it. Based on your feedback, let me refine my issue and question.
How much the war costs is known as you said. However, how the war was planned to funded, or is currently being funded, was never presented directly to the citizens of this country by the current POTUS. The original message that came out of the White House, and indirectly to the people, was that revenue from selling Iraq's oil would fund the cost of the war. Should this issue not be presented directly to the people by the POTUS?
quote:
Originally posted by Tsnyder
Two things...
First... I don't think we're engaged in two wars.
We are engaged in one war on two fronts. No big
deal... just the way I see it.
Second... the phrasing of your question doesn't really
lend itself to a clear cut response. I'm not even sure
what you mean by "What should the American people be told
about finding the money..."
I'm also not sure what you mean by "The current administration
has never tallied to the American people about the funding of
these wars..."
Are you saying the costs are not available? I don't think that's
true at all. Every dime had to be appropriated by Congress. It's
all public record. Democrat politicians toss the numbers around
at will.
If the people suffer from some kind of disconnect on this subject
it's because they don't care enough to look for the facts.
Tsnyder
|
|
|
ML
3006 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 10:02:24 AM
|
Wars used to be good for the economy. We built tanks, and planes, and ships, and guns to fight conventional wars. Now, modern warfare calls for more hi-tech devices. It costs something like $1.5 Million to put one soldier in theater. Defense budgets are more concentrated now, and fewer defense dollars "trickle down" to assembly line workers.
We also used to fight our wars with "regular army" but it is fabulously expensive to maintain an armed forces of the size necessary to fight wars on two or more fronts. Now we use National Guard to supplement regular army. Rather than "creating" a full time military job, our current defense strategy removes a fully (mostly) employed individual from the community and gives him/her a lower paying job, away from home, than the one they enjoyed.
|
|
|
Tsnyder
8256 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 10:15:58 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
A thoughtful response as always and I do appreciate it. Based on your feedback, let me refine my issue and question.
How much the war costs is known as you said. However, how the war was planned to funded, or is currently being funded, was never presented directly to the citizens of this country by the current POTUS. The original message that came out of the White House, and indirectly to the people, was that revenue from selling Iraq's oil would fund the cost of the war. Should this issue not be presented directly to the people by the POTUS?
If you mean should POTUS (whoever it is) make a point of personally
delivering the information to the people via press conferences or speeches
I'd say my answer is a qualified maybe... lol
I recall GWB making many public speeches asking for support for this or that
fundng bill in which dollar amounts were given. Were they specific in sourcing
the funds? Not really... but I don't recall seeing too many politicians ever
being specific on that topic.
A recent example would be the question in the most recent Presidential debate
where Brokaw asked both to list some things that would have to be cut in order
to accomplish the new goals each candidate promotes. Neither candidate really
responded directly to that question.
If we're being truthful, the cost of every government program comes from a
single source... the people. I think most Americans have that basic understanding.
The problem is they all want to protect the programs that benefit them directly
so they see that money as coming from someone else. They object to paying more taxes
to fund programs that don't benefit them directly... because that's THEIR money!
They forget the old axiom that a government large enough to give you everything
you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.
I think they also forget (or haven't heard) one of my favorite political jokes
(which isn't really a joke when you stop to think about it)...
The word Politics is a compound word derived from "poli" (meaning many) and
"tics" (which are blood-sucking insects)... so "politics" means many blood-sucking
insects.
Sounds about right to me... lol
Tsnyder
|
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3663 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 10:40:14 AM
|
I enjoyed reading your response and yes, my use of POTUS in this thread is party-neutral.
I highlighted the line I like best from your post. This is so very true.
Regarding the war, a point that sticks in my "craw" is that we are years into a war without one ever having been formaly declared by Congress as required by our Constitution (I think). With that said, the same is true for the Vietnam war.
quote:
Originally posted by Tsnyder
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
A thoughtful response as always and I do appreciate it. Based on your feedback, let me refine my issue and question.
How much the war costs is known as you said. However, how the war was planned to funded, or is currently being funded, was never presented directly to the citizens of this country by the current POTUS. The original message that came out of the White House, and indirectly to the people, was that revenue from selling Iraq's oil would fund the cost of the war. Should this issue not be presented directly to the people by the POTUS?
If you mean should POTUS (whoever it is) make a point of personally
delivering the information to the people via press conferences or speeches
I'd say my answer is a qualified maybe... lol
I recall GWB making many public speeches asking for support for this or that
fundng bill in which dollar amounts were given. Were they specific in sourcing
the funds? Not really... but I don't recall seeing too many politicians ever
being specific on that topic.
A recent example would be the question in the most recent Presidential debate
where Brokaw asked both to list some things that would have to be cut in order
to accomplish the new goals each candidate promotes. Neither candidate really
responded directly to that question.
If we're being truthful, the cost of every government program comes from a
single source... the people. I think most Americans have that basic understanding.
The problem is they all want to protect the programs that benefit them directly
so they see that money as coming from someone else. They object to paying more taxes
to fund programs that don't benefit them directly... because that's THEIR money!
They forget the old axiom that a government large enough to give you everything
you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.
I think they also forget (or haven't heard) one of my favorite political jokes
(which isn't really a joke when you stop to think about it)...
The word Politics is a compound word derived from "poli" (meaning many) and
"tics" (which are blood-sucking insects)... so "politics" means many blood-sucking
insects.
Sounds about right to me... lol
Tsnyder
|
|
|
Tsnyder
8256 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 10:26:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
I enjoyed reading your response and yes, my use of POTUS in this thread is party-neutral.
I highlighted the line I like best from your post. This is so very true.
Regarding the war, a point that sticks in my "craw" is that we are years into a war without one ever having been formaly declared by Congress as required by our Constitution (I think). With that said, the same is true for the Vietnam war.
That's because Congress... both House and Senate... both Republican and Democrat...
is comprised largely of self interested cowards. They'll gladly pass all the resolutions you want but ask them to get serious and debate an actual declaration of war and they
can't get out of the room fast enough. The vast majority of them lined up to vote in
favor of the resolution giving Bush the power to go into Iraq. They could just as
easily have passed a Declaration of War... but that wouldn't give them political cover
later on.
Heck... even if they refused to pass a resolution it wouldn't matter. We have
allowed the authority of the Constitution to be usurped by a curious thing called
Executive Order. If you really want to spend some time shaking your head in wonder
study up on the history of Executive Orders... and read the list of those that have
been issued.
Shortly after Clinton took office in his first term George Stephanopoulus was
quoted as saying... "Executive Orders, stroke of the pen, law of the land... pretty
cool!"
I, for one, don't think it's cool at all. But, the American people, buried in the
mundane details of survival, largely have no clue about exactly who is running our
government, and by what means.
Frankly, I believe there's plenty of evidence to support the fact that our
Constitution is pretty close to irrelevant today. Politicians, judges and
high level government appointees pay lip service to it in public but seem to
not understand or recognize its limitations in the course of conducting their
official duties.
If I had the power I would do what an English King once did... begin hanging
government officials on the steps of the Capitol building for putting their
personal opinions and desires above the law (i.e. the Constitution).
Tsnyder
|
|
|
assassin17
4155 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 10:34:22 PM
|
10 billion a month seemed like an awful lot of money until they dropped a trillion on bailouts without blinking an eye. No muss, no fuss.
The 10 billion a month argument has lost all credibility now. Apparently, that is just petty cash for this country. |
|
|
darkstar
18092 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 05:31:10 AM
|
| What always amazes me is that people think the war costing $10b came out of the blue...The same military cost $7b a month before the war, people think that when we're not at war there is no cost for our military, it's not much different except we lose more lives... |
|
|
fairandbalanced
44 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 06:14:37 AM
|
| Amen Darkstar! |
|
|
lunarhamster
4001 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 06:23:05 AM
|
| I hope all of these Financial Institutions enjoy their raises and trips to the Spa, I wonder if Obama will get a huge donation to his campaign, courtesy of the tax payer!! |
|
|
SoCalRay
2698 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 07:20:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by darkstar
What always amazes me is that people think the war costing $10b came out of the blue...The same military cost $7b a month before the war, people think that when we're not at war there is no cost for our military, it's not much different except we lose more lives...
That is some fuzzy math
The military budget the year 2000 was already $260 Billion a year.
Tell me how that equals $7 billion a month
That number looks like a lot more then $84 Billion a year
http://www.dod.mil/execsec/adr1999/chap18.html
I used the numbers before 9/11 because we all know the number went way up after it
|
|
|
mykal5
2765 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 07:26:21 AM
|
I'm no Conservative, and as a Liberal I am sure you would expect criticism from be. With that out of the way, Bush could have done much more to explain the need to cut back spending in other areas to cover the cost. I'm not so sure asking Americans to make sacrifices would have been a great idea given the mood, but Congress? Veto? This will in my opinion be his biggest failing.
The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan war on a monthly basis is estimated to be between $8-14 per month (http://tinyurl.com/gv6us , http://tinyurl.com/43qvs9)
Our defense budget for 2009 will be $515.4 billion which does not include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf)
The cost of those two wars in 2009 will be an estimated $190 billion (http://tinyurl.com/ynm8zp)
|
|
|
homebroker@sbcgl
3435 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 10:01:04 AM
|
Pelosi and the Democrats received votes on the promise to pull out of Iraq. They did win and no pull out at all.
A pull out would hand over the country to radicals and turn Iraq into a Taliban type state, Obama also talks the talk, I doubt he will walk the walk and do any major changes once elected. It easy to say what you need to to get elected, but will they do as they promise, most likely not. |
|
|
kbaker
907 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 10:56:08 AM
|
We need to get back to basics and the primary reason we have a federal government when setting spending priorities.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. |
|
|
Tsnyder
8256 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 11:47:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by kbaker
We need to get back to basics and the primary reason we have a federal government when setting spending priorities.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Kurtis...
The problem is that Liberals... Democrat or Republican... seem to think
the phrase PROMOTE the general welfare means PROVIDE the general welfare.
Tsnyder |
|
|
assassin17
4155 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 11:51:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tsnyder
The problem is that Liberals... Democrat or Republican... seem to think
the phrase PROMOTE the general welfare means PROVIDE the general welfare.
Ding ding... "and the winner... with a knockout in the first round..." |
|
|
rmorin
3 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 12:06:47 PM
|
I think a case could easily be made that the money being spent on these wars goes directly into the economy. Somebody makes bullets and gets paid for them. Goes home and buys bread for his family. Just like the space program...they don't just load up a rocket with money and send it into space. Businesses do benefit if they are directly related, and even businesses who are not directly related, like the baker and the shoemaker...
Maybe the argument should be that if all politicians are against taxes and all want to balance the budget...why do they raise taxes and spend money like they do? Is it because the people don't hold them accountable? Otherwise, you would have politicians that were replaced every few years when they screw up. Talk about teachers not having accountability... Why would you keep a CFO who couldn't manage money?
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
question is related to the conservative belief in controlled spending and less taxation.
We have had two wars under way for many years now ... and they both will continue for years to come. It costs a ton of money to fund these wars. The current administration has never talled to the American people about the funding of these wars so people really disconnected from this aspect of our current wars.
What should the Amercian people be told about finding the money to pay for these two wars?
|
|
|
gmic
327 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 12:13:46 PM
|
| The funding for our military whether they are engaging in a confrontation or not comes from Defense Spending in the Budget. When additional funds are required, the Press have always reported on the amount and members of Congress have made public speeches regarding their views. Ultimately, nothing is done unless Congress approves it. A vote is taken and it passes or doesn't pass. I do not remember either hearing or reading anything from President Bush stating that Iraqi Oil would pay for the war and I'd been interested in any reliable source that demonstrates that he did, very interested. Personally, I have always felt that as soon as Iraq's economy was producing a surplus, they should begin paying back every copper penny that has been spent in gaining their freedom from a brutal dictator that murder hundreds of thousands of their citizens every year. I have not heard anything from anyone, the Administration or anyone in Congress saying Iraq should start paying us back. The only thing I've heard is that our economy is in the tank and Iraq's economy is showing an 80 Billion Dollar surplus. That is all I know about this subject. |
|
|
kbaker
907 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 2:46:33 PM
|
The states originally United for defense not welfare. In providing a safe environment to live they were then Promoting the General Welfare of all. Time has corrupted the original reason the States United in the first place.
My recommendations:
1. Term Limits for ALL politicians
2. Line item veto.
3. Balanced Budget Amendment, with only exception - War/National Security.
4. Zero Base Budgeting with Open Book Accounting. All checking accounts including checks, published online with exception of Security Items. Even those, published generational. 50, 75 or 100 years later.
The power needs to shift back to the people. |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3663 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 5:09:04 PM
|
Totally agree. I've never had any issue with military-related expenditures.
quote:
Originally posted by assassin17
10 billion a month seemed like an awful lot of money until they dropped a trillion on bailouts without blinking an eye. No muss, no fuss.
The 10 billion a month argument has lost all credibility now. Apparently, that is just petty cash for this country.
|
|
|
frank drigotas j
1503 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 6:24:53 PM
|
On this topic I am with CoolMtgGuy's inference.
What we have seen expended during the Bush administrations is indeed a staggering TAX on future generations.
It has been a strange and regrettable phenomenon of the latter day Republican Party.
Is it best called "spend, then tax"?
dollar |
|
|
| |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
Search for: 
