Why was it paid for with a credit card?

 

Serious, non-partisan question. Why no new revenue or accompanying cut to take care of it?

Why was it paid for with a credit card?

 

Serious, non-partisan question. Why no new revenue or accompanying cut to take care of it?

 

You will have to ask congress, republicans and democrats alike.

How about Iraq gives us a few millions and millions in oil revenue? Nope, its gonna be on our tab.

Why was it paid for with a credit card?

 

Serious, non-partisan question. Why no new revenue or accompanying cut to take care of it?

 

Fair question Ace. In my opinion (and its obviously based on a guess since I it's impossible for me to know), GW didn't want to risk losing any Congressional support for the war that would be caused by calling for cuts to programs supported by members of Congress or increased taxes. If I am correct, it was a total mistake by GW and a very disappointing approach by him. Either the war is justified and the cuts/new taxes required, or it shouldn't be waged. Throughout the war while GW was in office, I think GW and his handlers had the approach of "make things as normal for America as they could be" with the war going on. I don't know if they thought that was a lesson learned from Vietnam or not. Perhaps they knew that the total effort in Iraq was going to take a long time and they felt that Americans don't have the stomach for long, drawn out military endeavors. In in order to "keep the stomach" as long as possible they had to minimize the adverse affects on Americans. Hence, not require cuts to domestic programs and not raise taxes.

 

It's somewhat easy for me to say it was a mistake by GW since I wasn't privy to all the discussions being held by GW, his handlers, military leaders and members of Congress. But barring that info and knowing the thinking, that is my opinion.

Fair question Ace. In my opinion (and its obviously based on a guess since I it's impossible for me to know), GW didn't want to risk losing any Congressional support for the war that would be caused by calling for cuts to programs supported by members of Congress or increased taxes. If I am correct, it was a total mistake by GW and a very disappointing approach by him. Either the war is justified and the cuts/new taxes required, or it shouldn't be waged. Throughout the war while GW was in office, I think GW and his handlers had the approach of "make things as normal for America as they could be" with the war going on. I don't know if they thought that was a lesson learned from Vietnam or not. Perhaps they knew that the total effort in Iraq was going to take a long time and they felt that Americans don't have the stomach for long, drawn out military endeavors. In in order to "keep the stomach" as long as possible they had to minimize the adverse affects on Americans. Hence, not require cuts to domestic programs and not raise taxes.

 

It's somewhat easy for me to say it was a mistake by GW since I wasn't privy to all the discussions being held by GW, his handlers, military leaders and members of Congress. But barring that info and knowing the thinking, that is my opinion.

 

:thumb: Best, impartial analysis of the answer to what happened.

Why was it paid for with a credit card?

 

Serious, non-partisan question. Why no new revenue or accompanying cut to take care of it?

 

Another serious, non-partisan question. How many programs can you think of where new revenue or accompanying cuts take care of them?

 

I'm sure they're out there but I'm having trouble thinking of them. It seems to me that if they were common we wouldn't have a deficit. Or am I missing something?

Another serious question - will sound partisan but it is not -

 

Why the revenue (tax) cuts? I can understand the above analysis completely and would probably agree that most of it is correct. But why then, when no one was really screaming about their taxes being so high (they had been where they were since 1996 I think). Was there an increase in revenue that resulted from the tax cuts? I would think that while you were spending hundreds of billions of dollars - outside of your normal budget - that you would at least want to keep a regular revenue stream.

Another serious question - will sound partisan but it is not -

 

Why the revenue (tax) cuts? I can understand the above analysis completely and would probably agree that most of it is correct. But why then, when no one was really screaming about their taxes being so high (they had been where they were since 1996 I think). Was there an increase in revenue that resulted from the tax cuts? I would think that while you were spending hundreds of billions of dollars - outside of your normal budget - that you would at least want to keep a regular revenue stream.

 

With the tax cuts, money went back into the pockets of the taxpayers. THat money was spent on things in the economy.

 

Without the increased spending that the tax cuts provided, wonder if the recession would have started earlier?

Why was it paid for with a credit card?

 

Serious, non-partisan question. Why no new revenue or accompanying cut to take care of it?

 

My guess would that in a war, there is not a fixed cost. You don't know up front what it will cost to win the war.

 

Using the Bunning situation, they knew what the cost was going to be and could have paid for it exactly with stimulus funds, cuts or whatever.

 

No one at that time nor at this time knows what the exact cost of the war in Iraq or in Afghanstan will cost or will benefit this country when it is all said and done.

My guess would that in a war, there is not a fixed cost. You don't know up front what it will cost to win the war.

 

Using the Bunning situation, they knew what the cost was going to be and could have paid for it exactly with stimulus funds, cuts or whatever.

 

No one at that time nor at this time knows what the exact cost of the war in Iraq or in Afghanstan will cost or will benefit this country when it is all said and done.

 

So you budget zero for it? I don't get that.

 

Nobody saw the recession coming, and what if the American people had become more fiscally responsible b/c we were helping pay for the war - maybe the recession wouldn't have happened at all.

So you budget zero for it? I don't get that.

 

Nobody saw the recession coming, and what if the American people had become more fiscally responsible b/c we were helping pay for the war - maybe the recession wouldn't have happened at all.

 

Not what I meant. You have different spending packages to vote up and down on but you don't know what the entire final cost will be.

 

Your comment on American people becoming more fiscally responsible is sadly, very funny. Our mindset of unlimited consuming and building up debt by both citizens and politicians flies in the face of that comment.

 

Citizens have only become fiscally responsible by the recession having made them with some not having to because Congress bailed them out.

 

While the politicians still haven't got it and are spending like they are my teenagers and think my ATM card has unlimited funds.

Besides, as the Democrats feared with the Bunning blockade, cutting something to pay for something will lose them votes. And they are mostly about keeping their job by spending and giving out money to voters.

Besides, as the Democrats feared with the Bunning blockade, cutting something to pay for something will lose them votes. And they are mostly about keeping their job by spending and giving out money to voters.

 

While you continue to spout republican talking points, I am trying to figure out why we didn't create some method to pay for the war. At its onset, many believed it was the right thing to do . . . would not patriotic Americans been up for a little tax increase to help pay for a "needed" war.

 

I have not said one thing about Republicans or Democrats or even GWB

While you continue to spout republican talking points, I am trying to figure out why we didn't create some method to pay for the war. At its onset, many believed it was the right thing to do . . . would not patriotic Americans been up for a little tax increase to help pay for a "needed" war.

 

I have not said one thing about Republicans or Democrats or even GWB

 

No more than patriotic Americans were up for a little spending decrease to help pay for the needed war. We all know how those proposals worked out.

Which billion dollar spending decrease are you talking about that was propsed between 2003 and 2008