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
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.

Yes, thats what I have rubbed your nose in all along.

That there wouldnt be a problem with the dramatic increase in the national debt without Iraq and Vietnam.

And that the US could in theory have just decided that if the Japs
wanted SE Asia so badly that they were welcome to it and Hawaii too.

The problem is that the voters wouldnt have worn that with WW2,
and it wasnt really feasible to predict that sanctions against Japan
that produced the Jap attack would produce that.

If we Wish to go to war, we should be prepared to pay for it.

In practice what actually happens is that the voters wanted to do something about
the Jap attack and were happy to worry about how that gets paid for later.

Thats the way it works. You get to like that or lump it.

In spades with the cold war.

Much of it is already a sunk cost -- we have already
purchased much of the stock the military uses, for example.

Thats just plain wrong too. There is no good reason to continue with the
military industrial complex now that there is no possibility of a military
attack on the US anymore. The US could choose to toss its military
industrial complex in the bin just like all the rest of the first world has now.

And like I said, that would fix the national debt quite quickly.

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

Its just not politically feasible. And never has been either, even centurys ago.

It was never going to be possible to kick the english out of america that way.

Or fund the civil war that way either.

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

In which case, the gubmint can sell War Bonds.

Thats just the national debt you keep mindlessly hyperventilating about.

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.

Not even possible to kick the english out of america that way, or do the civil war that way either.

And lets not forget that the american war of independence was produced
by the stupid english attempting to do what you claim is the way it 'ought
to be' done. It was significantly increasing taxation to pay for the
administration of america that trigged the war of independance.

Or do both.

Whatever works for you.

The national debt works for me.