The Republican party is very effective at attacking President Obama and the Democrats on deficit spending and a growing national debt, conveniently having amnesia about the fact that the majority of the national debt occurred under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
They are ready to condemn “wild” government spending on a health care plan that we “cannot afford”. But at the same time, when the suggestion is made that if we are to escalate our involvement in Afghanistan, that maybe we should have the American people pay a “war tax”, as we always paid during every past war except those under the second President Bush, then suddenly their answer is “NO WAY!”
If it is so important that we continue to make a commitment to Afghanistan for many years, then why not expect that the sacrifice of the American people, who face no draft but have a responsibility to those who fight for us, should be to pay for the cost of the war, rather than hand it on to our children and grandchildren?
In the past, while maybe many citizens were unhappy over paying higher taxes during our various wars, they did so with a sense of patriotism and loyalty to the cause of freedom. Why cannot we expect that same level of commitment from the American people now?
Again, the GOP is quick to send our sons and daughters over to fight for us, but not to demand from the people that they do their fair share in the war effort! In other words, this is total hypocrisy!
I agree. Perhaps a war tax could be a way to get the idea of the econommic price of war through the sometimes thick head of the everyday American. It seems that the average joe just can’t make the connection between a decade of operating two costly wars, not to mention the global “war on terror”, and the serious decline of the American economy. Yes the bankers are crooks, but we could have better handled them if not for the deficits caused by funding ten years of war.
Right on, Skribble. Let’s add tax cuts for the rich to your analysis of why we couldn’t handle the economic crisis: “Yes the bankers are crooks, but we could have better handled them if not for the deficits caused by funding ten years of war” . . . AND TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH.
What about bringing back the draft?
Fred, this has been proposed by Charles Rangel, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, but would never pass Congress, because it would cause such an uproar. Rather, we prefer as a nation to hire those who are willing to go to do our job for us, and that keeps the civil peace at home. It is clear that IF we were to have a draft, we would have a divided nation, much like during Vietnam.
Fred and Ronald, a draft would divide the nation, but young people would go to the streets like they did in the 1960s. The final result: war would be less of an option.
I’m not so sure young people would go to the streets as they did in the 60’s. We’ve seem to have lost that aspect of the younger generation. I was exposed to the draft in college. I didn’t like it and wouldn’t really wish it on the young today, however, it may make us think twice about some of our international involvements. It might serve as a check on Presidents and Congresses who tend to vote things without accepting the consequences.
Bringing back the draft would send young people to the streets. It’s nice to look back and see the motivation for anti-war sentiment as being opposition to war, but it was really opposition to their being sent to war. What bringing back the draft would do is mobilize the country to end the wars. Ron, your memory must be fading. There was no sense of patriotism for those paying taxes for the Viet Nam war. There was certainly little sense of patriotism for the troops coming home from the war. Remember how veterans were treated then? I do.
Pat, I can agree with you that no one likes paying taxes, but it has become an art form now to oppose any taxes. The fact is that we always did pay higher taxes in wartime until the Bush II Administration. I also well remember the bad reaction to our heroic veterans after Vietnam, and that was outrageous. Believe it or not, my memory is NOT fading, as I am an historian! 🙂 LOL
But quite a number of historians will tell you that they do have bad memories. It’s what helps them separate the wheat from the chaff.
I don’t envy the next generation of historians who will have an incredible number of resources to shift through — including tapes of daily radio and television broadcasts and the entire Internet. They will need to be more selective than they have been in the past or narrow their subjects so that they become almost trivial.
I wonder if this will lend itself to diminished objectivity. It will take a concerted effort not to allow personal biases to be the sorting device.:(
What are your thoughts on this, Ron?
I agree, Edrene, that it will be a monumental task to write an objective view of the times we have been through, and that the materials that will be available will be overwhelming in number, and there will be the problem of reliability.