Paying for the "War"

[Anonymous]

Wars are expensive. In this case, we've already approved $40 billion for relief. The actual fighting will certainly cost more.

Suppose the total over the next year is $100 billion. How do we raise the money?

One approach is inflation, another is taxes. Since the public seems to be looking for opportunities to "help, somehow", I would suggest a tax which can be instituted almost immediately and is highly visible.

Given the circumstances, the best bet would be $1.00 per gallon of gas. We could do it next week, everyone can see it, and it should raise about $100 billion.

Any comments? Any alternatives?

[E. Blackadder]

The real cost of any war will be recession.

When you take lots of folks away from their jobs, less gets produced, and bad things happen to the economy.

We learned this during the administration of Bush the Elder, when we pushed back Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Everyone I know would be willing to pay, but I don't think a gas tax is a good idea. It pumps up the cost of every business, and is regressive.

Any tax should be neutral or progressive, and should be clearly listed as temporary. Maybe a 3% bump on everybody's income tax, to last for 3 years? Or maybe a traveling tax, such as extra taxes on plane, train, and bus fares? Congress should strike now, while the iron's hot. There would be no outcry whatsoever.

Can you think of any other good ones?

[Anonymous]

On 2001-09-16 12:02, E. Blackadder wrote:
The real cost of any war will be recession.



Wars stimulate the economy, but reduce long-term investment.

[Anonymous]

I say we sieze all assets of the countries we invade. Those can pay for the war.

[Anonymous]

I say when this is done we give marxism a shot, maybe it'll work better than this dusty, antiquated capitalist model

[LifeAct]

:bumb:

it's kind of funny to read threads from the early days of the AO (or RF, or whatever it was back then)