Posted on 12/15/2006 7:08:54 AM PST by blitzgig
Believe it or not, winning the war in Iraq was never the Bush administration's highest priority. Saving its tax cuts was more important. That was once spoken of as a moral problem. Now it's a practical barrier to a successful outcome.
Until recently President Bush's refusal to scale back any of his tax cuts was discussed as the question of shared sacrifice: How could we ask so much from a courageous group of Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan but not ask even the wealthiest of their fellow citizens to part with a few extra dollars to support an endeavor supposedly central to our nation's security? On the contrary, even after we committed to war in Iraq, the administration pushed for yet more tax cuts in dividends and capital gains.
Now we know that the decision to put the war on a credit card is not simply a moral question. The administration's failure to acknowledge the real costs of the war -- and to pay them -- has put it in a corner.
The president's options in Iraq are severely constrained because our military is too small for the foreign policy he is pursuing. Sending more troops would place even more excruciating burdens on members of our armed forces and their families. And the brass fears that an extended new commitment could, quite simply, break the Army.
Yet, instead of building up our military for a long engagement and levying the taxes to pay for such an enterprise, the administration kept issuing merry reports of progress in Iraq. Right through Election Day this year, the president continued to condemn anyone who dared suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should raise taxes to pay for this war.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Thank you Mr. Rangel.
Once again. Reduced tax rates, increase government revenues. Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it, and Bush knows it.
"and they want to be able to blame the Republicans for a bad economy"
They even blame Republicans for a bad economy when there is a great economy.....
Schools should start teaching economics and civics.. Beginning in kindergarten! =)
I've got some of those, plus my Dad's uniform.
Then there were war bonds.
We knew we were at war.
Throwing money at this war is not going to win it. It would be won if the Iraqis would step up and kill their own kind who are making all the trouble.
They're dying to kll each other, if only we would let them.
I opposed this from day one.
The tax cuts resulted in more revenue for the Federal Government. Most of it just wasn't spent on the military, but rather on "social" programs, bridges to nowhere, and poured down other rat holes.
Yes the military is too small. It's takes 3 units to keep 1 "one the line". That gets you up to 420,000 right there. Plus there are support folks that never deploy and aren't counted as part of the 2 "back" units. Plus there are support (in a broad sense, since it includes Air Force "shooters") units deployed at places other than Iraq, such as Kyrgyzstan. Plus the troops in Afghanistan. The ones in Kyrgyzstan are probably more like 1 up 1 back but the ones in Afghanistan are the 1 up 2 back variety. We've got naval forces in the Persian Gulf and the Indian ocean, support forces on Diego Garcia and a contingent in the armpit of the world, Djibouti. That's just the folks dedicated to the Global War on Radical Islamic Terrorism. We have other missions as well.
Sure. After all, we're at war. But, in your mind, what constitutes "sacrifice".
Are we supposed to raise taxes...and kill the economy?
Are we supposed to institute a draft...unnecessarily?
Are we supposed to submit to the absurd security policies of the TSA...forever?
Or should we correspond with a soldier in Iraq? Or contribute to charities that support the survivors of fallen warriors?
During WW II the media and Hollywood were on America's side, and supported the war effort, including the sense that everyone contributed something. Today the media and Hollywood are mostly anti-American, and will trash anyone with the temerity to suggest we all should pay for "Bush's War." This is a vicious trap set by the left to further split the people from the military forces fighting on freedom's behalf.
Let some congressman suggest raising gasoline taxes by 10% as a war surtax and see what follows, from Dionne and the rest of the whorehouse left.
A progressive temporary war surcharge, maybe? This would be made difficult by the unpopularity of the war... but equipping the troops to improve their safety and their ability to wage war might sell it.
Well, you won't like what I said in 33. But there is a cost to fighting an effective war -- I think revenues should be generated to do that without substantially increasing deficit spending. Those two concerns mean that there is no easy solution.
Quote: "Would the military have needed to be built up in 1941 if it hadn't been reduced to nothing after 1932? W has failed to build a military necessary to what must be done, and he's had 6 years WITH control of Congress to do it. Clinton is irrelevant."
I wonder if the military could have been built to anything in 1941 if today's MSM and dem party were around back then. No way, no how. Instead, two years after Pearl Harbro, they would have called for negotiations with Japan Hell, senators like Kerry and Kennedy would be on their way there right now. Can you imagine military recruiters being kicked off of campuses or highschools back then?
Moreover, and more importantly, in 1941 I believe there was a draft. It was easier to build up the armed forces. With a volunteer military, it is not so easy and you often find yourself in a "come as you are" posture when it comes to fighting war. That is why Clinton is not irrelevant and should not be left off of the hook in any way, shape, or form.
Regardless of what you call it, it's still a tax increase.
Tax increases risk undermining the economy and, as has been demonstrated, result in less revenue for government.
The 911 attack on the WTC was a direct attack on our economy -- hoping to create a crash and wreak damage on the public's will to survive.
Why, then, should we start undermining our own economy, doing their work for them?
There is plenty of money for equipping the troops. Giving up pork barrel spending for one year would provide ample funding.
But, of course, that would be requiring Congress to sacrifice -- and, now that they're in power, the Democrats have an agenda to serve. And you can bet your sweet bippy it ain't going to include military expenditures...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.