when will Obama issue War Bonds? to help pay for W's wars and his

[StarsInHerHair]

expansion in Afghanistan? Classic film fans know what I'm talking about, and it's something I thought about from the moment W invaded, on the Spring Equinox 2003. It'd be good to have "Platinum Level" war bonds, for the wealthy to support our nation; priced at $10,000 apiece. Some war bonds could be priced at lower levels too.

thoughts?

[ProSense]

1. When will Obama (fill in the blank)

Obama is a (fill in the blank)

Say anything.

[doc03]

2. I wouldn't be surprised if he bombs Iran overnight to make

the Republicans happy.

[Scurrilous]

4. LOL

That's an amazing statement.

[msongs]

3. maybe for his war on progressives and liberals lol nt

[StarsInHerHair]

5. so no one thinks it's a genuine route to help pay off the War Debt?

nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

8. Probably never.

Paying for stuff is so last century.

[jeanpalmer]

9. As soon as he

insitutes a draft. He just sent the 101st Airborne Division to Afghanistan for its 4th tour in 7 years. What a misuse of soldiers. And he just used them for a photo op.

Is Afghanistan still W's war? Seems to me it's Obama's.

[StarsInHerHair]

10. I acknowledged that by calling it his expansion

I would hope that War Bonds would help stabilize the perception of the U.S. economy and get some of the rich to shoulder some of the burden of the costs. It worked after WW2.

[Union Scribe]

11. True, but WWII wasn't the shameful abomination these wars are.

And that's why I doubt there will be any effort like the one you describe. They don't want to remind people about these wars, much less enact something that would make people think about the nobility gap between WWII and these follies. They also don't want to admit that the government can't afford the wars, because it'd give ammunition to those of us who want them to end.

Not that bonds are a bad idea at all, I just don't think the government, or the rich, would step up for it.

[Igel]

12. You don't understand.

War Bonds were special issue Treasury bonds. You give the government $10k or whatever, they take the money. Then they pay you interest on the $10k and at some later time give you the money back.

It's a way for the private sector--rich and poor, individual and corporate--to loan the government money. Money that has to be paid back with interest.

We already have a way for the private sector--rich and poor, individual and corporate--to loan the government money. Money that has to be paid back with interest.

They're called T-bills or US Savings Bonds. The only real difference between them and war bonds was their name. War bonds don't "pay for" anything not already covered by other forms of government-issue bonds. If it makes you feel better, I'll take some of my kid's Savings Bonds and put them in an envelope labelled "war bonds."

The only reason for "war bonds" was PR: helping to sell them. The only present reason would be for PR: Pointing out that the war spending contributes to the deficit. Those who would get the point already got the point; those who you want to get the point probably wouldn't. But designing and printing the special-issue bonds would, of course, require money.