[QUOTE]NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- War is expensive, and it's about to get more so if the U.S. government escalates its military efforts in Afghanistan.
President Obama is set to announce his strategy next week. And the question of cost hovers in the background of the difficult decision he faces.
Over the past eight years, the nearly $1 trillion cost of the military's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan was essentially charged to the national credit card.
Will it be different this time?
There's some chance lawmakers may opt to pay the bill as it comes due, rather than letting the balance and interest accrue. It's not the first time the idea has come up, but it may be the first time the idea is given serious consideration.
A big part of the context for deciding whether and how to pay for a buildup are the growing deficits that have become a political and financial albatross. The country's accumulated debt is expected to rise from $12 trillion today to $21 trillion by the end of 2019.
Some lawmakers are pushing for a war tax. Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, took part in the latest war council meeting. And Obama is expected to raise the cost issue in his Tuesday evening address at West Point.
Since 2001, close to $1 trillion has been appropriated by Congress - and borrowed by Treasury - to pay for U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service published in September.
Total spending on the global war on terror, including missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, could approach $2 trillion by 2019 depending on the level of military involvement, the CRS reported.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Wednesday told reporters that Obama's address would stress that further engagement in Afghanistan would not last another eight years. Gibbs also characterized the increase in troops as "very, very, very expensive" in terms of potential lives lost and dollars spent.
The White House estimates a troop increase will cost $1 billion a year for every 1,000 troops. So if Obama chooses to increase troops by as much as 40,000, that's $40 billion a year. That would be on top of the costs incurred for the troops and operations already on the ground, including the costs of any drawdown in Iraq.
"That's in addition to what we already spent in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That also does not include training and it doesn't include maintenance of a security force," Gibbs said.
Enter David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and other leading Democratic congressmen who have proposed a graduated war surtax beginning in 2011 to pay for U.S. military efforts going forward. The amount of tax collected would have to be sufficient to cover the full war costs of the previous year.
The surtax would start at 1% for anyone with taxable income and increase gradually up the income scale to as much as 5% for the highest-income households.The only people exempt from having to pay the war surtax would be members of the military who have served in combat since Sept. 11, 2001, their families and the families of military members who died in combat.
"Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for," Obey said in a statement. "The only people who've paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families."
Separately, Obey noted that if the cost of the Afghan war isn't paid for it will "wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, has acknowledged the issue is very much on the minds of legislators.
"Let me say that there is serious unrest in our caucus about 'Can we afford this war?' " she told reporters on Tuesday.
In the Senate, Armed Service Committee Carl Levin, D-Mich., told Bloomberg Television last week that he could support a war tax levied on those making more than $200,000.
The White House, however, remains mum about what tax if any the president might support to pay for future efforts in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/25/news/economy/paying_for_Afghanistan_war/index.htm?cnn=yes[/url]
And of course this tax most likely won't disappear when the war is over.
But at least soldiers will be exempt from it if it comes into being.
In before "nuke it" :downs:
Taxing probably wouldn't make much sense ("you bomb us, then ask us for money?"). can't they farm large amounts medicinal opium there or something?
[editline]04:51AM[/editline]
Also, I think we should nuke them.
[quote= The op's quote] $12 trillion today to $21 trillion by the end of 2019 [/quote]
Fuck it. Let's just keep spending and pretend there's no debt. It's not like we aren't already doing that.
[QUOTE=Daolpu;18593931]Fuck it. Let's just keep spending and pretend there's no debt. It's not like we aren't already doing that.[/QUOTE]
Run for president my main man.
[QUOTE=Daolpu;18593931]Fuck it. Let's just keep spending and pretend there's no debt. It's not like we aren't already doing that.[/QUOTE]
Have no fear! This guy will give help you with a loan :buddy:
[IMG]http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-09/17/xin_18090317085333611351.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18594036]Have no fear! This guy will give help you with a loan :buddy:
[IMG]http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-09/17/xin_18090317085333611351.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
China will die soon, the US may owe them money but that doesn't mean they have any.
More taxes, yay.
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;18594060]China will die soon[/QUOTE]
To be replaced by.. Uganda!
Why the fuck should we be taxed for Bush's war that he couldn't pay for?
I say we tax the people who organized and pushed for this war in the first place: Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, CACI, Titan, WGN, and the rest of the military-industrial complex. The Bush and Cheney families personally should receive a 99% income tax to pay for their fucking war. Every last cent of these companies earnings should be fully and completely taxed until the end of the war, because they are ultimately the ones responsible for it.
And if we can't pay for the war...DON'T CONTINUE FIGHTING THE FUCKING WAR!
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;18594224]Why the fuck should we be taxed for Bush's war that he couldn't pay for?
I say we tax the people who organized and pushed for this war in the first place: Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, CACI, Titan, WGN, and the rest of the military-industrial complex. The Bush and Cheney families personally should receive a 99% income tax to pay for their fucking war. Every last cent of these companies earnings should be fully and completely taxed until the end of the war, because they are ultimately the ones responsible for it.
And if we can't pay for the war...DON'T CONTINUE FIGHTING THE FUCKING WAR![/QUOTE]
Yes, completely ignore all the congressmen and senators who voted for war too.
When China is going downhill, that is when they will be asking for their money back. Keep China afloat until the dollar is low enough to pay back.
Although Republicans hate taxes AND debt, they hate the Democrats more. So they can be relied on to always vote no.
Ah...
Lucky we dont have this in australi--
*Looks it up*
a...
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18594254]Yes, completely ignore all the congressmen and senators who voted for war too.[/QUOTE]
Good point, they should bear the expense as well, since they were cajoled into voting for it by the aforementioned interests.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;18594300]Keep China afloat until the dollar is low enough to pay back.[/QUOTE]
A good chance that the dollar exchange rate is preset, so US going downhill doesn't save it...
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;18594207]To be replaced by.. Uganda![/QUOTE]
[img]http://josephkaroki.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/06-15-2007-museveni-uganda.jpg[/img]
Today 2 womens from Afghanistan came to our school and talked bout it
Holy fuck Obama how about you do what you said you would and just pull us out. We can't win this damn war
"The Norweegan Nobel Committee hass decided that the Nobel Peas Prize for Tohthosanine is to be awarded to..."
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2668640/nobel.png[/img]
Sounds like a good plan. The war doesn't really affect the rich because they don't have to send their kids to war, so they should share the burden by paying higher taxes instead.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;18607862]Sounds like a good plan. The war doesn't really affect the rich because they don't have to send their kids to war, so they should share the burden by paying higher taxes instead.[/QUOTE]
No one "sends their kids to war". Its all volunteer.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18607922]No one "sends their kids to war". Its all volunteer.[/QUOTE]
But proportionally a lot more poor kids go to war because they need the money for college. Rich white kids don't need that kind of financial support so a lot less of them volunteer.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18607922]No one "sends their kids to war". Its all volunteer.[/QUOTE]
A very shallow volunteer effort for many, as they have little choice. It's one of the biggest tickets to college. Not mentioning the ridiculous amount of propaganda the state spews out to get you to join.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;18608071]But proportionally a lot more poor kids go to war because they need the money for college. Rich white kids don't need that kind of financial support so a lot less of them volunteer.[/QUOTE]
Still, no one [i]forces[/i] them to join.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18608198]Still, no one [i]forces[/i] them to join.[/QUOTE]
you're splitting hairs. whether they are forced directly by the state or indirectly by the economy means little. they are still forced.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;18607862]Sounds like a good plan. The war doesn't really affect the rich because they don't have to send their kids to war, so they should share the burden by paying higher taxes instead.[/QUOTE]
Sir, my father makes almost 100,000 dollars a year ,and I'm still joining the military. Your accusation is completely false. Even if it was a war your drafted into your still all looked equally.
[editline]05:31PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conscript;18608298]you're splitting hairs. whether they are forced directly by the state or indirectly by the economy means little. they are still forced.[/QUOTE]
Once again your not forced. You volunteer to get the college money. You volunteer when you see recruitment posters. Seeing the pattern? You volunteer to join. The big mean government does not force you unless their is desperate need for soldiers.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;18608367]
Once again your not forced. You volunteer to get the college money. You volunteer when you see recruitment posters. Seeing the pattern? You volunteer to join. The big mean government does not force you unless their is desperate need for soldiers.[/QUOTE]
once again you're not getting the point. does it mean much when one is left to the choice between poverty and volunteering for a means to get higher education (military), and chooses to volunteer?
unless there's something wrong with you, it doesn't. just admit it, poorer people have less choices and their paths straightforward, usually split between staying in miserable poverty or getting out of it. people with wealth have more options that often allows them to avoid sending their children to do the state's dirty work.
[QUOTE=Conscript;18608699]once again you're not getting the point. does it mean much when one is left to the choice between poverty and volunteering for a means to get higher education (military), and chooses to volunteer?
unless there's something wrong with you, it doesn't. just admit it, poorer people have less choices and their paths straightforward, usually split between staying in miserable poverty or getting out of it. people with wealth have more options that often allows them to avoid sending their children to do the state's dirty work.[/QUOTE]
Once again....
I'll write in bold this time
[b] It's your fucking choice to join/volunteer [/b]
Nothing is wrong with me. Also, that little sob story of yours saying the lower class has fewer options then the higher class is once again...Wrong. I could list out a group of people who despite all odds managed too make some change too the world that is still in effect today.
Shall I start the list?
Edgar Cayce.
A man with a spiritual power who grew up on a farm was able to predict the future and past ,and managed too use his abilities to solve diseases ,and make new innovations.
MLK Jr.
An African American man who kept going with peaceful civil disobedience in hopes that someday black man and white man will be able to live in peace.
Andrew Jackson.
A man who lost all of his family to captivity and small pox managed to become the miracle hope that helped win the Battle of New Orleans in 1812. He then later became the 7th president of the United States of America
Should I keep going? I can list alot more names.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;18609812]Once again....
I'll write in bold this time
[b] It's your fucking choice to join/volunteer [/b][/quote]
god you are fucking dumb. restating your opinion isn't getting you anywhere
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;18609812]Nothing is wrong with me. Also, that little sob story of yours saying the lower class has fewer options then the higher class is once again...Wrong. I could list out a group of people who despite all odds managed too make some change too the world that is still in effect today. [/quote]
if i was wrong, we wouldn't have poor people. plain and simple
unless you're one of the crazy libertarian and think we have poor people because they're lazy
the problem with your argument is that you have an idealistic perception of free will. the environment plays a bigger role in your decision making then you think. with that in mind, i would say that for a poor person, whose life is already being subjugated by the environment (namely money), refusing to volunteer for the army to get an education is out of the question. that is, unless, they have a fetish for living a miserable life.
i'm not sure how you can't understand this. this isn't a big concept. money is both a barrier and a means, depending on who you are.
[quote]Edgar Cayce.
A man with a spiritual power who grew up on a farm was able to predict the future and past ,and managed too use his abilities to solve diseases ,and make new innovations.
MLK Jr.
An African American man who kept going with peaceful civil disobedience in hopes that someday black man and white man will be able to live in peace.
Andrew Jackson.
A man who lost all of his family to captivity and small pox managed to become the miracle hope that helped win the Battle of New Orleans in 1812. He then later became the 7th president of the United States of America
[/quote]
what the fuck does this have to do with people in poverty getting out of poverty? honestly there are people who have (though they are, compared to the other millions of people who haven't, few and far between), but you could have picked better. also picking MLK jr is a little ironic because he was a socialist.
jesus your post just ignores my point and goes off somewhere irrelevant.
There's always loans and student loans from colleges
There's always scholarships from either Grades or Sports.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.