If we're going to fund the war, shouldn't we actually be paying for it?

[Telly Savalas]

Even without the war, current federal government revenues aren't sufficient to fund our present programs. So the government has to borrow money and our children have to pay.

Now Bush wants to throw billions more at this, but nobody on either side of the aisle that I'm aware of is talking about raising taxes to get these billions.

If the American public is truly committed to the war, then they shouldn't be paying for it instead of making their kids pay for it? And if Americans aren't willing to make the little sacrifice of a tax increase to fund the troops, then shouldn't we withdraw immediately?

Is anybody on Capitol Hill asking these questions?

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Those are some very good questions. I hope they get asked. n/t

[jobycom]

2. Paul O'Neil asked it. Cheney fired him for it. Cheney's response was idiotic and revealing.

"Deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that."

Further evidence that these bozos need to meet someone who doesn't already agree with them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. the debt is colossal. It is time for the people to speak

the representatives are suppose to represent the people?

[krkaufman]

4. Yeah, I think so. Dems had promised pay-as-you-go funding.

They should add repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest (e.g. Halliburton stockholders) to the funding bill.

[krkaufman]

5. Same goes for a Draft, really.

If the American people aren't willing to commit themselves and their children to the war, then it needs to be ended. The troops and their families have been asked to sacrifice far more than is reasonable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x810006

[Rydz777]

6. Yours is the best question that

politicians are neither asking nor answering. It's insanity that we are "funding" this war with money we are borrowing from China.

[Lasher]

7. Current deficits are being caused by 2 things: Iraq and tax cuts

Here is the 2006 National Budget Simulation Game. Try it yourself: If you eliminate the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts and the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan you end up with a small surplus.

These tax cuts, which mostly benefitted the richest 10%, are unprecedented in that they occurred during wartime. Like spending, tax cuts are a form of revenue depletion. Tax burdens are being shifted to future generations, and not actually reduced. They are not being accounted for by spending reduction or some other form of revenue generation, so debt is the result.

Historical statistics show that Republican administrations do cut taxes, but they actually spend more than Democrats. The resulting increases in our national debt are clear:


http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Republicans often claim that we can't sustain 'entitlement' programs like Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps. But it never seems to occur to them that maybe we can't afford to keep spending almost as much on our military as the entire rest of the world combined. And they don't seem to understand that their tax cuts have accomplished little more than make rich people richer, perpetuate dynasties, and bankrupt the treasury.

Military spending and tax cuts need to be included in discussions of what we can afford, but all Republlicans want to talk about cutting is our social programs. Like you, I hope our Congressional leadership will start to ask questions like these: Are you in favor of restoring taxes on the richest 10% to pre-2001 levels in order to eliminate deficit spending? Which would you rather eliminate, the Estate Tax cuts or Medicare? Junior's Maginot Line in the sky or the food stamp program? The Decider's adventure in Iraq or Social Security?