On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:45:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

Politics being what it is and where the decision will be taken,
No One will ever back off from spending what they want on
things they support.

In reality what particular individuals may or may not personally
support is completely irrelevant to what is possible politically.

If it's Not possible politically, then it's not going to happen at all.

Its never that black and white with something that most of
the voters dont get too exited about like the national debt.

It may not be, but it ought to be.

Its always been how escapades like Iraq and Vietnam have always been done.

Which is not an argument for how they Ought to be done.

There is no other way to do it. Its just not feasible to increase the taxes enough
to pay for Iraq in the year the costs are incurred, its too expensive for that.

Then perhaps the casus belli ought to be reconsidered, in light of
that Truly Insightful observation.

If we Wish to go to war, we should be prepared to pay for it. Much of
it is already a sunk cost -- we have already purchased much of the
stock the military uses, for example.

But the incremental costs ought to be borne when it's happening.

And you cant cut other stuff enough to pay for it either.

In which case, the gubmint can sell War Bonds. Which is a form of
debt, and provides a sort of Instant Feedback as to how much the
public supports the war in the first place.

If war is a good investment, then folks ought to invest in it.

Or do both.

Whatever works for you.