See, I just thought of something. The Bush administration spends hundreds of millions of dollars on the wars and related things and gives people, more particularly rich people, tax cuts. Combine the 2 together, you get a huge deficit. I personally don’t like debts. I think that a balanced budget is something very important so to me that whole thing makes no sense. I think that people are eventually going to need to pay for all this and part of the reason the wars got so much support is that people weren’t realizing exactly what the costs meant. I think that there should be a law such that whenever the Congress decides to go to war like it did with Iraq, it should levy a war tax so the war effort sustains itself. I think that a lot of people would really not want to go to war under these circumstances. Thoughts?
I agree. There’s always a bunch of trigger-happy pseudo-patriots out there who have a craving for wars, but the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq is a huge finantial drain. Bush’s tax cuts to the rich will hardly stimulate the economy, and it’s unfair that everyone else should have to pay the price. Those tax cuts seem more like a way to get the richest people and the corporations’ support. It’s not fair that people who are trying to save up for welfare, or already depending on it have their food practically torn out of their mouths when it’s clear who’s really benefiting from the war.
Said law would probably only pass if it contained an article that allowed it’s nullification during extreme emergencies that involved national security, such as the risk of imminent attack. Then, when the next conflict arises, the definition of “extreme emergencies” would be twisted and included in the field of executive powers, or my nickname for it: “Whenever the President feels like it”.
I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, just very easy to override.
Unfortunately yes. Just as the definition of terrorist, which allows them to arrest anyone they feel like.
I thought so as well. I was thinking that the law would come in effect after the deployments had begun. You can start the military action if you want, like what has happened, you just can’t get the ball rolling for any decent length of time (read months) where costs in the billions arise. So really the point is to have a war tax for any military operation that incurs above a certain set cost. So a war.
I dunno about balanced budgets. Keynesian economics seems to mandate deficit spending in many circumstances, and as inexact a science as economics is (okay, I’ll come out and say it–the great majority of economics theory smells like psuedoscience to me), Keynes’ seems to be the most successful system yet. Hell, the man practically foretold WWII and was a large part of the planning for the post-war world, though if memory serves, he didn’t see the end of the war.
Also, the national debt gives us a great resource in issuing bonds, which the Fed can buy and sell as a great tool in managing the money supply and preventing hyperinflation. There are other things, of course, too.
Tax raises and tax cuts by nature fall most tellingly on the rich; our income tax scale is progressive. You could cut taxes across the board, or even implement a flat tax, and the rich whould still reap the most benefit, as they pay the greatest nominal taxes.
My point isn’t about who benefits from the tax but how the tax would definetly put the war costs into perspective and that would hit people on a daily basis and this would get thus get them to react. Its personal.
That would probably require a declaration of war too, which we haven’t had since WWII.
But fuck Keynesian economics. Just get a balanced budget. I’ve been a long time proponent of the BBA (as well as a few other amendments, some of which only I seem to think about).
An easier solution would be to have anything other than absolute honesty and transparency by an elected official considered treason, punishable by execution. Get a couple heads up on some pikes outside the White House, that’ll learn’em.
<small>But seriously,</small>
Fix the root problem, not one of its negative effects.
RPT’s right about how its best to be treating the disease and not the symptom, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider all possible alternatives.
They used to do that in the old days in Europe. It made the peasants angry and potentially rebellious and generally wasn’t a very good idea could it be avoided. It would raise the threshold, no neocon or hawk would let it pass.
Blood, carnage and executions, yay!
<small>But seriously,</small>
Fix the root problem, not one of its negative effects.
What problem? You mean the one where banks lend money to people and countries they should know can’t or won’t pay them back, or the one where incompetents rule the world?
Now there’s an interesting thought.
I think you guys are misapplying Keynesian economic theory. It is actually something that (I believe) the neoconservatives and the GOP in general are not fans of:
The idea is that you use the state as a means to buttress and grow an economy by focusing on the demand rather than the supply. This is what was successful in the rebuilding social-democracies of Europe as well as American economic theory in the late 50s-60s.
deficit spending is slightly different, that’s what Reagan and all his disciples like. Keynesian ideas concerning deficit spending are more limited in scope.
.
I’ll admit it, I didn’t read most of the replies, mostly because I got bored and have been drinking, again, so it couldn’t hold my attention. However, I -did- read Sin’s first post, and for the first time ever, I agree. I love the idea of a war tax. That would force a lot more people to be aware of what’s going on around them, which never hurt anyone, and would fund people like me who go to these countries and fight the wars.
I know what Keynesian economics is. I still don’t like it.
For reasons functional or ideological?
We. Need. A tank Katamari pushed by Bush. 984?
Economics is something I’ve recently became interested partly because of the deficit. I have read from quite a few people that I respect about how deficit is a good rather than bad thing. I don’t have the economic basis to understand it completely, but from my understanding it is just like investment with any debt. People get a loan to start a company and thus go in debt which isn’t bad as long as the company succeeds. Most of the deficit is other countries spending money in the US in terms of capital which as long as we don’t screw that investment up we can return it for either the same amount or a profit.
The only effect a war-tax would have had on the Iraq war, in my opinion, is it may have put enough pressure to bring the troops home early and even then I doubt it. It would not have prevented the start of the war. So we would be in the same position we are now except the people in the US would not have as much money in their pocket which would lessen consumer confidence. Right now the economy in the US is doing rather good except in some sectors. The job fairs around here have all had record numbers of companies registering. I am not sure that would be the case if we as people had to finance the war ourselves. By using a deficit to finance the war you keep the economy going so that paying it off becomes an easier job and there is still growth to be had when the soldiers come back to their jobs. Again, I’m no economist, but that’s my thoughts.