Has the War in Iraq been the largest tax increase since WW2?

[techs]

Just wondering if it is safe to say the war in Iraq is the largest increase in taxes since WW2?
Since money doesn't grow on trees and we now owe almost a trillion dollars for our mis-adventure, we will now have to pay a huge tax increase at some point.

 

[Vic]

The Bush administration has seen the largest federal budget spending increase since WWII, approximately a 40% increase. While less than during WWII, this increase in spending under Bush is faster than during FDR's New Deal. IMO, spending is always a tax increase, because the debt WILL have to paid sometime.
At the same time, GDP growth during Bush's admin has been the slowest since Carter.

 

[ayabe]

Despite what McCain says, he will have to raise taxes in order to get the budget balanced, otherwise whatever is left of Bush's legacy will evaporate - because the true costs of this war aren't yet hitting us.

I liken it to H.W. Bush having to raise taxes to fix the S&L crises that was Reagan's puppy, he was forced to raise taxes despite his "Read my lips" pledge. He had to do what was right for the country vs. what was right for him or the R party.

In the end he saved Reagan's legacy because if he failed to do so, the recession that followed would have been much, much worse.

 

[ericlp]

yeah... the tax is an extra 2 bucks for gas....

We are starting to pay for it now... But it will go up probably 6-8 bucks ... Were not even close to paying the bill yet... I hope all the repubs and any other idiot that voted for bush enjoys paying for it... Pray all you want cause god's not gonna get you out of your debt...

 

[Lemon law]

Direct and indirect costs of the Iraq war already stand at something like 2-3 trillion already. Do de math, 300 million American people must now pay $3.33 for each billion, $3300 for each trillion and that cost goes to each man, woman , and child in the USA. But lucky me, I may evade paying my fair share because I could die of natural causes first.

All of that so GWB&co could put war time President on his long resume of inept bungles.

Does it really matter that I did not vote for GWB and opposed this war from the start, we all get to pay and pay and pay anyway.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
Just wondering if it is safe to say the war in Iraq is the largest increase in taxes since WW2?
Since money doesn't grow on trees and we now owe almost a trillion dollars for our mis-adventure, we will now have to pay a huge tax increase at some point.

1/9th of our debt is the largest? What about the other 8/9ths?

Only reason you even mention it is because you want to raise the taxes the pay for it and you don't support spending it in the first place.

Feel free to oppose the Iraq war, but this is a gutless backhanded slap against it. Stand on real principles and not hiding behind the very thing you would impose on us.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: techs
Just wondering if it is safe to say the war in Iraq is the largest increase in taxes since WW2?
Since money doesn't grow on trees and we now owe almost a trillion dollars for our mis-adventure, we will now have to pay a huge tax increase at some point.

Sorry, you guy has already been tagged with this and we called no do overs.

 

[Stunt]

All deficit spending is a tax increase in the form of currency devaluation and inflation. It's a tax that hurts the lowest income earners the worst.

 

[RebateMonger]

It's even worse. To hide the inflation that comes with the huge deficit spending, Bush has supported artificially low interest rates. That, in turn, spiked a huge housing boom....

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
It's even worse. To hide the inflation that comes with the huge deficit spending, Bush has supported artificially low interest rates. That, in turn, spiked a huge housing boom....

You can't really blame Bush for the housing boom, much like you can't blame Clinton for the tech bubble. Buying a house in principle is a good long term investment, for most people it is the only forced investment they have during times in their lives where all their expenses go towards their family or student debts. The problem was people buying houses they could not afford and banks not completing diligent analysis of risk. Zero down mortgages and payments too high for owners to pay for could happen at any interest rate level.

Besides, the fed (separate institution) sets interest rates...not Bush...

 

[charrison]

To compare todays debt to WWII, you must realize that we ended WWII with a debt to gdp ratio of about 130%. Today our debt to gdp is 65% and that is only up slightly since bush took office 7 years ago.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison
To compare todays debt to WWII, you must realize that we ended WWII with a debt to gdp ratio of about 130%. Today our debt to gdp is 65% and that is only up slightly since bush took office 7 years ago.

It's projected to be at 68% at the end of Bush's term, which is up 11% overall. And he increased total spending by ~40%, which is (in pure dollars) the largest increase for any administration since WWII. And he did with deficits in every single year.
So maybe he's not as bad fiscally as Reagan was, but close.

Originally posted by: Stunt
All deficit spending is a tax increase in the form of currency devaluation and inflation. It's a tax that hurts the lowest income earners the worst.

WINNER!

Not only that, but low income earners usually aren't holders of government bonds either.

Theoretically, a government could fund itself without any taxes at all, just 100% deficit and printing money, but the resulting inflation, high interest rates, etc. would implode the economy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
It's even worse. To hide the inflation that comes with the huge deficit spending, Bush has supported artificially low interest rates. That, in turn, spiked a huge housing boom....

You can't really blame Bush for the housing boom, much like you can't blame Clinton for the tech bubble. Buying a house in principle is a good long term investment, for most people it is the only forced investment they have during times in their lives where all their expenses go towards their family or student debts. The problem was people buying houses they could not afford and banks not completing diligent analysis of risk. Zero down mortgages and payments too high for owners to pay for could happen at any interest rate level.

Besides, the fed (separate institution) sets interest rates...not Bush...

The Fed doesn't set mortgage rates in the US. Mortgage-backed securities trend roughly with the yield on the 10 year treasury bond. So there's a bigger story here, like how a decade of reasonably responsible fiscal policy more or less contributed to mortgage rates coming down gradually and steadily since the double-digits of the Reagan years. This IMO kind of "set the stage" for the housing boom and bust to come. Housing became such an increasingly attractive investment over the course of more than an decade that a kind of "can't lose" mentality took over the market on all sides, from buyers to banks.

 

[ProfJohn]

From the 2008 fiscal budget:
National Defense: 607 billion
Human Resources (aka social spending): 1,864 billion

Our social spending is three times our defense spending, including the cost of the wars, and yet the $125 billion or so we spend in Iraq is root of all evil?

BTW you could also break it down by agency
Department of Defense $583 billion
Health and Human Services $709 billion
Social Security $596 billion

But wait!!! There's more!!!!
Since the start of the war in 2003 we have spent perhaps $700 billion on the war (that is a guess based on roughly $125 billion a year)
In that same time frame we have spent about $3 trillion on "Health and Human Services."

Sure the Iraq war has cost too much money, but to pretend that it is the cause of all our problems is just stupid.

 

[Vic]

Proposed FY 2009 federal budget (Bush's last):

The President's budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2008. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

* Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
o $644 billion - Social Security
o $408 billion - Medicare
o $224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
o $360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
o $260 billion - Interest on National Debt
* Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)
o $515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
o $145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
o $70.4 billion - Health and Human Services
o $59.2 billion - United States Department of Education
o $44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
o $38.5 billion - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
o $38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs
o $37.6 billion - Department of Homeland Security
o $25.0 billion - Energy
o $20.8 billion - Department of Agriculture
o $20.3 billion - Department of Justice
o $17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
o $12.5 billion - Department of Treasury
o $11.5 billion - Department of Transportation
o $10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
o $10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor
o $8.4 billion - Social Security Administration
o $7.1 billion - Environmental Protection Agency
o $6.9 billion - National Science Foundation
o $6.3 billion - Judicial Branch
o $4.7 billion - Legislative Branch
o $4.7 billion - Corps of Engineers
o $0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President
o $0.7 billion - Small Business Administration
o $7.2 billion - Other Agencies
o $39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison
To compare todays debt to WWII, you must realize that we ended WWII with a debt to gdp ratio of about 130%. Today our debt to gdp is 65% and that is only up slightly since bush took office 7 years ago.

It's projected to be at 68% at the end of Bush's term, which is up 11% overall. And he increased total spending by ~40%, which is (in pure dollars) the largest increase for any administration since WWII. And he did with deficits in every single year.
So maybe he's not as bad fiscally as Reagan was, but close.

I wont argue that point, but it is dishonest to compare the current debt to gdp to post WWII. The levels are not even close.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic
Proposed FY 2009 federal budget (Bush's last):

The President's budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2008. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

* Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
o $644 billion - Social Security
o $408 billion - Medicare
o $224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
o $360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
o $260 billion - Interest on National Debt
* Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)
o $515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
o $145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
o $70.4 billion - Health and Human Services
o $59.2 billion - United States Department of Education
o $44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
o $38.5 billion - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
o $38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs
o $37.6 billion - Department of Homeland Security
o $25.0 billion - Energy
o $20.8 billion - Department of Agriculture
o $20.3 billion - Department of Justice
o $17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
o $12.5 billion - Department of Treasury
o $11.5 billion - Department of Transportation
o $10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
o $10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor
o $8.4 billion - Social Security Administration
o $7.1 billion - Environmental Protection Agency
o $6.9 billion - National Science Foundation
o $6.3 billion - Judicial Branch
o $4.7 billion - Legislative Branch
o $4.7 billion - Corps of Engineers
o $0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President
o $0.7 billion - Small Business Administration
o $7.2 billion - Other Agencies
o $39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

Lets see how much it gets increased before it makes it out of congress. I guarantee you it wont go down. Both parties are too blame.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sure the Iraq war has cost too much money, but to pretend that it is the cause of all our problems is just stupid.

The point is that it shouldn't have cost anything at all. It was a massive waste of our money that could have and should have been avoided.

And even the most conservative (no pun intended) estimates put the cost in excess of $1 trillion, with some as high as $3 trillion.

And I have to ask, why are you apologizing for this waste? Do really believe that this relatively minor economy of scale somehow makes it all better? Sure, you were bad but they were worse? Is that your opinion of good logic?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sure the Iraq war has cost too much money, but to pretend that it is the cause of all our problems is just stupid.

The point is that it shouldn't have cost anything at all. It was a massive waste of our money that could have and should have been avoided.

And even the most conservative (no pun intended) estimates put the cost in excess of $1 trillion, with some as high as $3 trillion.

And I have to ask, why are you apologizing for this waste? Do really believe that this relatively minor economy of scale somehow makes it all better? Sure, you were bad but they were worse? Is that your opinion of good logic?

His point was that war has cost to much, but out government in general costs too much. There is a spending problem in DC and both sides are feeding from the same trough.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison
To compare todays debt to WWII, you must realize that we ended WWII with a debt to gdp ratio of about 130%. Today our debt to gdp is 65% and that is only up slightly since bush took office 7 years ago.

It's projected to be at 68% at the end of Bush's term, which is up 11% overall. And he increased total spending by ~40%, which is (in pure dollars) the largest increase for any administration since WWII. And he did with deficits in every single year.
So maybe he's not as bad fiscally as Reagan was, but close.

I wont argue that point, but it is dishonest to compare the current debt to gdp to post WWII. The levels are not even close.

I didn't see anyone comparing debt to GDP except you.

And yes, both parties are to blame for spending. I totally agree, and Idon't think I've ever said otherwise here. I'm just a bit ticked off at the Pub's continuous pattern of fiscal irresponsibility. And I think it's about time that they learn the hard way that just because some politician tells them he's going to cut taxes, and they elect him on that promise, doesn't mean he actually did it when he doesn't cut spending as well. And then they re-elected him!
At least the Dems, for all their other faults, seem to understand basic economics.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sure the Iraq war has cost too much money, but to pretend that it is the cause of all our problems is just stupid.

The point is that it shouldn't have cost anything at all. It was a massive waste of our money that could have and should have been avoided.

And even the most conservative (no pun intended) estimates put the cost in excess of $1 trillion, with some as high as $3 trillion.

And I have to ask, why are you apologizing for this waste? Do really believe that this relatively minor economy of scale somehow makes it all better? Sure, you were bad but they were worse? Is that your opinion of good logic?

His point was that war has cost to much, but out government in general costs too much. There is a spending problem in DC and both sides are feeding from the same trough.

I understood that. It's just that there's government waste... and then there's a mega-boondoggle like Iraq, which I argue could have and should have been avoided entirely.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison
To compare todays debt to WWII, you must realize that we ended WWII with a debt to gdp ratio of about 130%. Today our debt to gdp is 65% and that is only up slightly since bush took office 7 years ago.

It's projected to be at 68% at the end of Bush's term, which is up 11% overall. And he increased total spending by ~40%, which is (in pure dollars) the largest increase for any administration since WWII. And he did with deficits in every single year.
So maybe he's not as bad fiscally as Reagan was, but close.

I wont argue that point, but it is dishonest to compare the current debt to gdp to post WWII. The levels are not even close.

I didn't see anyone comparing debt to GDP except you.

And yes, both parties are to blame for spending. I totally agree, and Idon't think I've ever said otherwise here. I'm just a bit ticked off at the Pub's continuous pattern of fiscal irresponsibility. And I think it's about time that they learn the hard way that just because some politician tells them he's going to cut taxes, and they elect him on that promise, doesn't mean he actually did it when he doesn't cut spending as well. And then they re-elected him!
At least the Dems, for all their other faults, seem to understand basic economics.

Well the title of the thread seems pretty clear on the comparison to WWII. So it is not just me.


Yes the Pubs are getting their asses handed to them and rightfully so. They attempted to compassionate conservatives which only amounted to attempting to buy votes with with their pet projects. They are learning the hard way.

The dems dont know anything about about economics and if they do they would rather ignore it.

The Dems want to stop trade, which will hurt us long run.
the dems want to increase taxes as the only means to balance budgets. They seem to forget you can spend less to bring things into balance.
They insist upon keeping our resourced locked up, so we are more dependant on foreign resources.
I could go on, but by in large the dems fail at economics.

 

[bamacre]

The war in Iraq has damaged us much more than just the direct dollar amount. The lives lost for one, and add in the physically and mentally wounded. But even further, resentment and respect for the USA has dropped to even lower levels, our military is much more deteriorated. Morale is down, recruitment is way down. And the "war on terror" takes another blow as the invasion and occupation of an Arab country only gives more ammo to those who hate us and continue to recruit more.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sure the Iraq war has cost too much money, but to pretend that it is the cause of all our problems is just stupid.

The point is that it shouldn't have cost anything at all. It was a massive waste of our money that could have and should have been avoided.

And even the most conservative (no pun intended) estimates put the cost in excess of $1 trillion, with some as high as $3 trillion.

And I have to ask, why are you apologizing for this waste? Do really believe that this relatively minor economy of scale somehow makes it all better? Sure, you were bad but they were worse? Is that your opinion of good logic?

His point was that war has cost to much, but out government in general costs too much. There is a spending problem in DC and both sides are feeding from the same trough.

I understood that. It's just that there's government waste... and then there's a mega-boondoggle like Iraq, which I argue could have and should have been avoided entirely.

That is hindsight and this has been debated ad nauseum. I do respect you for always holding that opinion, unlike many of folks in DC.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: charrison
That is hindsight

Not for a lot of people.